The ‘scope’ of the ‘Seroxat is defective’ trial goes (probably) to the Court of Appeal
A solicitor, Peter Todd, has Tweeted that the claim has ‘failed’:
However, in my previous reporting I had noted that the defendants had not formally asked for the case to be ‘dismissed’: the word does not appear in the Judgement, and in fact it was part of the claimants’ submission that an ‘application to strike out’ had not been made. (Lawyers – feel free to comment on whether ‘dismiss’ and ‘strike out’ are exactly the same thing).
This appears to be the key paragraph confirming that the claimants could have proceeded, but only if GSK could have defended on the basis of Seroxat’s ‘relative benefits’ (see my piece on SSRIs, second link above):
Even if the appeal is heard quickly, it seems very unlikely that the trial would resume in the High Court before September, because the witnesses would have to be re-scheduled.
The appeal will add to the costs, which will be a factor in whether the claimants continue or abandon, especially if it is lost.
I will try to follow the case in the Court of Appeal.
(25th November 2019: the claimants have lost their appeal)