[16] The plaintiff's principal allegations were that the UK government had been negligent in failing to become sufficient as a country in the supply of blood products at an earlier point, and in delaying the implementation of heat-treatment of clotting factors in order to inactivate HIV.

[16] It was further alleged that the defendants did not respond correctly to the AIDS crisis, specifically, in not reacting with urgency to move to banning imported blood products which were derived from paid donors.

[18] No one could doubt the sincerity of the efforts of those in the Department to protect and to assist the plaintiffs as patients in the National Health Service, but on the pleaded case grave errors of judgment were made.

Even if there was no grave error of judgment it appears to be not in dispute that there was in fact a failure to protect the plaintiffs from the danger of using blood products, whether imported or supplied in this country, which were infected.

(...) The three appellate judges found for the plaintiffs and ordered the PII documents to be disclosed,[2] overturning the ruling of Rougier J of 31 July 1990[19] and at the same time, the cross-appeal by the Department of Health was dismissed.

"[22][23] On 26 June 1990, Mr Justice Ognall took the rare initiative of issuing a handwritten note imploring the parties to give anxious consideration to settling the action out of court.

[35][36] The use of the waivers has been described as controversial by the Haemophilia Society in their first written submission to the Archer Independent Inquiry because it was felt by many haemophiliacs that the government of the time was already aware of the true scale of infection with non-A non-B hepatitis (NANBH) in those who had been treated with blood products.