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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll