Subscribe to Search results

Lord Waldegrave told the Inquiry he considered there were two arguments which were key to winning the argument with the Treasury regarding the settlement. "The victims' lawyers have come forward with an offer that they say will be seen as fair by their clients. This will not recur, we've got to do this and do it quickly. And look at the numbers; you can afford them, we can afford them."

Published on:

In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, Lord Waldegrave explained his reasons for wanting to announce an agreement in principle whether or not there had been any agreement with the plaintiffs' representatives, and in circumstances where the plaintiffs themselves clearly would not all have agreed.

Published on:

William Waldegrave and David Mellor wrote to the Prime Minister regarding the proposed settlement. They attached particular importance to a number of points, including "recipients of the new money would have to undertake to drop the existing cases and forswear bringing any future cases on the matter".

Published on:

In his oral evidence, Sir John Major noted that in 1990 it would have been "absurdly foolish" to not have taken the opportunity to settle an issue that had caused victims a great deal of anguish.

Published on:

Civil servants told the Prime Minister John Major there were significant risks attached to settlement on the basis proposed, but the Health Secretary, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Social Security Secretary, and counsel all thought that those were outweighed by the advantages.

Published on:

The Prime Minister John Major agreed to the settlement proposals.

Published on:

William Waldegrave wished to make the announcement regarding settlement, whether or not the steering committee of lawyers representing the plaintiffs had agreed to the proposals. This caused tension with the Treasury.

Published on:

The solicitor who was chairman of the Scottish Haemophilia/HIV Litigation Group wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang: "Not only were the Scottish lawyers excluded from the discussions with the Government, they were not even advised that these discussions were taking place."

Published on:

William Waldegrave provided a written answer to a question regarding the settlement of the litigation.

Published on:

The general secretary of the Haemophilia Society, David Watters, praised the Prime Minister and William Waldegrave, but also commented that it was "unfortunate the settlement has been so low".

Published on:

David Watters wrote to William Waldegrave: "While the vast majority of our members have indicated their intention to accept, this is being done with resignation and disquiet, recognising that there is really no option since it is financially impossible to fight on."

Published on:

Strachan Heppell wrote to William Waldegrave regarding cases in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Published on:

Dr Rejman sent a memo to the solicitor acting for the Department of Health in the litigation about individuals who were HIV negative and so not covered by the settlement.

Published on:

Dr Rejman, in oral evidence, was asked about a memo he sent in 1991 which may have been the genesis of what later became a general undertaking not to sue in respect of hepatitis. His view was he was not expressing a new idea but recognising an established position.

Published on:

The draft terms of settlement for the HIV Haemophilia litigation were set out.

Published on:

A further draft settlement for the HIV Haemophilia litigation was put forward which expanded on the initial draft of the terms of settlement.

Published on:

The draft terms of settlement for the HIV Haemophilia litigation were refined further.

Published on:

Amendments to the draft terms of settlement were proposed by the plaintiffs' lawyers concerning the ability of the plaintiff's to bring further proceedings.

Published on:

The amendments to the draft terms of settlement proposed by the plaintiffs' lawyers were incorporated into the current draft.

Published on:

In a memo to Stephen Alcock, Charles Dobson noted that Scotland and Northern Ireland would be able to make similar offers to end the separate litigation in their countries once the final settlement in England and Wales was available.

Published on: