Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 62 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWCA Civ 1566
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Simon Brown, Buxton and Carnwath LJJ

Representation David Pannick QC and Michael Fordham (instructed by Arnold & Porter) for the claimant.
  Michael Beloff QC and Dinah Rose (instructed by the Solicitor for the Department of Health) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 6 November 2002

Catchwords

Medicine - Medicines - Prescription of drug - Restriction of prescription of drugs - Viagra - Requirement of Secretary of State to conduct analysis of competing priorities before restricting prescription of drugs - Council Directive (EEC) 89/105, art 7.

The Case

Article7 of the (EEC) 89-105 did not the require the Secretary of State to conduct an analysis of competing priorities before he could restrict the prescription on the NHS of any product. Nor did it require any other form of analysis and explanation. It was not to be thought that the Directive ever intended such an exercise to be undertaken. On the contrary, the objective and scope of the Directive was altogether different. The transparency required was in the published criteria and they themselves were objective and verifiable.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.