FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Judgement was given on Feb 4, 2016 with regard to the on-going Seroxat (paroxetine) litigation in the UK. (1)
Defendants, GlaxoSmithKline, sought an order that would have had the effect of bringing these proceedings to a permanent halt.
In arriving at his conclusion to not grant GlaxoSmithKline their order, Mr. Justice Foskett said...
"The Defendant is anxious (it might be said, over-anxious) to stop this litigation in its tracks. The motivation may simply be a total conviction that there is, in effect, no case to answer and that it is wrong to be harassed with unmeritorious claims. Alternatively, it may derive simply from a desire not to have to face in this jurisdiction the kind of claims brought in the USA and elsewhere. It may, of course, be a combination of both."
Mr. Justice Foskett had previously asked both parties to supply him with a summary of other litigation throughout the world concerning Paroxetine. In his Judgement Mr. Justice Foskett said...
"Although the list of actions provided to me on behalf of the Claimants is longer than that provided by the Defendant, a cursory comparison suggests that they largely cover the same material. Overall, it would seem that in the USA between 2000 and 2005 over 3500 claimants alleged that they suffered discontinuation symptoms when they attempted to reduce or discontinue the use of Paroxetine and in 2005 a confidential settlement agreement with a total of 3,294 eligible claimants (whose claims would otherwise have gone to a jury trial) was reached with no admission of liability. From 2003 a cohort of claimants filed a "putative class action" consisting of all California residents who paid for prescriptions of Paroxetine in California in which it was alleged that they sustained economic damage and were entitled to reimbursement or other relief due to alleged "discontinuation symptoms." In January 2012 a class-wide settlement with no admission of liability was achieved. Again, the claims would have gone to a jury trial in the absence of settlement."
It's good to see this on-going litigation finally get the thumbs-up to move forward to trial, and in my view the Honorable Mr Justice Foskett has to be applauded here for meticulously combing through arguments from both parties.
Mr Justice Foskett's Judgment seems to have paved the way for both parties to, at the very least, now plan where they are going with this.
The case between: SANDRA BAILEY AND OTHERS (Claimants) and GLAXOSMITHKLINE (UK) LIMITED (Defendant) will now proceed to trial.
Claimants are represented by Jacqueline A. Perry QC, Niazi Fetto and Timothy Killen (instructed by Fortitude Law)
Defendants are represented by Malcolm Sheehan QC and Andrew Kinnier (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP)
Bob Fiddaman.
Declaration of Interests: I am one of the claimants.
(1) Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 178 (QB) (04 February 2016)
No comments: