Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
A day in the life Of...
Read on

Hair testing company apologises after accusing competitor of unreliable results

Date:13 JUN 2011

Hair Two companies that provide hair tests for substance abuse, which are sometimes used as evidence in care proceeding cases, have clashed after one suggested that the other's testing methods were not reliable. 

Roar Forensics has published a full apology and a retraction after Trimega Laboratories instructed defamation solicitors following the publication of inaccurate information about Trimega's hair tests on Roar's website.

The offending article suggested that hair alcohol testing by Trimega Laboratories was not reliable and that the company was not appropriately accredited. Roar Forensics has removed the article from its website, replaced it with a retraction, which it has also sent to all recipients of its original correspondence, and agreed not to make the same or similar statements about Trimega again.

Avi Lasarow, CEO of Trimega Laboratories, said: "We are pleased that Roar Forensics has made a full apology to us, recognised our accreditation and the very high levels of accuracy of our hair alcohol tests, and set the record straight on its website and directly to the recipients of its original inaccurate correspondence."

On its website, Roar Forensics has now published the following retraction: "In an article on our website and in a recent email circular, we suggested that hair strand testing by Trimega Laboratories was not reliable. It has been pointed out to us, and we accept, that Trimega's testing conforms with all applicable standards and is fully accredited, or, in the case of their new laboratory, in the course of obtaining the relevant UKAS accreditation. We also accept that, rather than the 20% error rate referred to by us, Trimega's rate for false positives is less than 1% and for false negatives approximately 5.75%. We apologise to Trimega for any embarrassment or damage caused by our article."