||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 62 (Nov)
|| EWCA Civ 1566
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Simon Brown, Buxton and Carnwath LJJ
||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.
||6 November 2002
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.
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.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary