header-logo header-logo

08 May 2008
Issue: 7320 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Community care , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Alzheimer victory for pharmaceutical firms

News

A computer model used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to assess the cost-effectiveness of an Alzheimer’s drug must be made available to drug companies, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In R (Eisai Ltd) v NICE & Ors the court ruled that NICE had acted unfairly in refusing to allow pharmaceutical firms Eisai and Pfizer access to a “fully executable” version of the economic model it had used when deciding that the drug Aricept should not be prescribed on the NHS to patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease.

Eisai and Pfizer—which market Aricept—were unable to properly challenge NICE’s decision because of the watchdog’s refusal to allow access to the economic model, the court ruled. The Court of Appeal’s decision means that NICE must now make such a version available.

NICE claims the full details of the computer programs are the intellectual property of the academic teams who developed them, and who are entitled to have them protected. It is considering an appeal to the House of Lords. Stephen Hocking, partner in the public law department at law firm Beachcroft, which acted for NICE, says this is a surprising and worrying judgment for all public bodies.

 

“Just as public bodies are expected to respect the role of the courts, so the courts have to respect the role of public bodies.

“There is a boundary between a proper scrutiny of what public bodies do, and an improper interference in how they do it. If the courts do not respect that boundary public bodies are at the mercy of any claimant with an axe to grind,” he says.

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll