Grounds of appeal
Grounds of appeal
Spectrum raise the following grounds of appeal which we will address in turn:
Ground 1: the FTT erred in deciding to resolve the issue of whether Spectrum made multiple supplies (under CPP/Levob) before reaching a decision on the contested scope of Article 132(1)(c) of the PVD.
Ground 2: the FTT erred in finding that EC v UK and Klinikum did not decide that supplies of drugs or goods (other than minor supplies strictly necessary for and not physically and economically dissociable from medical care) could never be elements in a single supply of medical care.
Ground 3: the FTT wrongly resolved the single/multiple supply issue by reference to the perspective of NHSE on the basis that NHSE was the contractual recipient of Spectrum’s supplies. The FTT ought to have taken the patient’s perspective.
Ground 4: the FTT made an Edwards v Bairstow error of law– the only conclusion open to the FTT on the evidence was that Spectrum made multiple supplies including supply of medical care and supply of prescribed drugs and contraceptives.
- Heading
- Introduction
- law
- EC v UK
- Klinikum
- Spectrum’s case on EC v UK and Klinikum
- FTT Decision
- Grounds of appeal
- Ground 1 – the FTT erred in taking the issues in the wrong order
- Ground 2 – the EC v UK error
- FTT’s treatment of EC v UK and Klinikum
- Spectrum’s submissions
- Discussion
- FTT misunderstood Spectrum’s concession/ oversimplified Spectrum’s case?
- Ground 3 – Error of contractual approach
- Ground 4 Edwards v Bairstow
- Conclusions
![UT/2023/000009 - [2024] UKUT 00162 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)