Subscribe to Search results

According to Dr Kingdon, it was unlikely that the industrial manufacturers in the US would have continued to use imported plasma in the manufacture of concentrates for any significant period as much of the imported plasma was infected with HBV.

Published on:

According to Dr Kingdon, a manufactured product might had a shelf life of two years.

Published on:

According to Dr Kingdon, the United Stated Federal Drug Administration's inspections of blood and plasma centres were important for changing practices in the plasma industry.

Published on:

The Draft Declaration of Trust Constituting Macfarlane Special Payments Trust excluded any further action in respect of HIV and hepatitis in Scotland as well as south of the border.

Published on:

Richard Henderson wrote to Ronald Powell to say that the Trust Deed and the undertaking not to take further legal action would have to be changed in respect of Scottish pursuers so that it no longer precluded any future action in respect of hepatitis.

Published on:

The Trust Deed was amended to set out, in a schedule, the undertakings to be given by Scottish litigants.

Published on:

The Macfarlane (Special Payments) (No.2) deed of trust was varied and the undertaking in the substituted schedule covering Scotland included, as per the agreement made in June 1991 in Scotland, HIV but not hepatitis.

Published on:

Scottish Home and Health Department officials became aware that the Scottish undertaking was different from the equivalent in England and Wales and sought to understand why.

Published on:

A scheme was drawn up for patients infected with HIV by blood and tissue transfer in Scotland. The reference to hepatitis in the proposed undertaking was deliberately removed.

Published on:

A minute seeking the approval of the NHS Chief Executive in Scotland recorded that "strong representations" had been received from the infected parties through their solicitors that because the settlement had been in respect of HIV, any undertaking to give effect to that settlement could not properly exclude hepatitis infections.

Published on:

A letter from Richard Henderson to J & A Hastie Solicitors referred to the reasons for excluding hepatitis infections from the undertaking.

Published on:

John Major accepted William Waldegrave's proposal for a pre-emptive announcement but told the Inquiry that "I did not wish for a backlash that it had been imposed on a take-it-or-leave-it' basis."

Published on:

A press release issued by the solicitors making up the plaintiffs' steering committee on the day of the Prime Minister's announcement in 1991 in the House of Commons stated: "These figures reflect the legal hurdles which the Plaintiffs must surmount in their litigation against the Government ... The figures do not represent proper compensation in moral terms for this appalling tragedy - that is not their purpose."

Published on:

The Inquiry's Second Interim Report noted the Government had accepted that compensation should be paid and that there was a moral case to do so.

Published on:

A letter from Paul Gray to Andrew McKeon recorded that the Prime Minister had agreed to the proposal to allocate a further £20 million to the Macfarlane Trust.

Published on:

The increase in non-discretionary payments from £10,000 to £20,000 within an unchanged overall allocation of £20 million was confirmed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Published on:

The terms of reference of the Inquiry required it to consider the "appropriateness of preconditions (including the waiver in the HIV Haemophilia Litigation) imposed on the grant of support from the Trusts and Funds".

Published on:

Plaintiffs in the litigation felt that they had no real choice but to accept the settlement. The wife of one of the plaintiffs explained that the Government announced a settlement payment in December 1990 and her husband attended a meeting in London with Mark Mildred of Pannone Napier to discuss the matter. HIV-infected people with haemophilia and all litigants, or at least a commanding majority, had to accept the offer, drop the litigation, and sign a waiver of rights.

Published on:

Many plaintiffs felt that they had no choice but to accept the settlement offer and they felt that they had no choice but to sign the waiver. A widow recalled that her husband did not want to sign it but he did not think he could afford to fight on alone, either practically or financially. In the end he gave in.

Published on:

Some plaintiffs were not entitled to legal aid and were having to make financial contributions towards the costs of the litigation.

Published on: