A WOMAN from Lymm has launched a legal battle against pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline.

Jennifer Kulczycki, of Linden Close, is seeking up for £50,000 for personal injuries and other losses suffered while taking Seroxat, a drug licensed to treat symptoms of depression.

She has been taking it for nine years and is one of more than 600 people taking legal action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

The claimants all allege difficulties in withdrawing from the drug. Since Seroxat was first prescribed it has been linked to the suicides of around 50 people and was banned for under 18s after reports that it trebled the risk of suicidal thoughts in depressed children.

The cases against GSK are due to be heard in autumn 2010.

In a previous statment GSK said: “Seroxat has benefited millions of people worldwide. We believe the product is not defective and there is therefore no merit in this litigation.”

A spokesman for the Seroxat User Group said it had heard from more than 40,000 people all suffering with side effects and withdrawal problems.

Many have problems when it comes to stopping taking the drug, with sickness, anxiety and aggression all common complaints during withdrawal.

“The drug companies make lots of money and never think about the people affected,” the spokesman said.

The group wants Seroxat to be more commonly prescribed in a liquid form to help people trying to stop taking the drug.

Mark Harvey, of law firm Hugh James, who is representing Miss Kulczycki said: “When patients took the drug, not only was there no warning of withdrawal problems, there was also a statement on the data sheet until about 2003 which said you cannot be addicted to Seroxat.

“Unfortunately, many people are having difficulties as they try to withdraw from the drug. There are a few who have not been able to stop taking it.”

Last March the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) concluded a four-year investigation into GSK and Seroxat, focusing on whether the company had failed to disclose information about the safety of Seroxat for under 18s.

The agency ruled that there was no realistic prospect of a conviction because legislation at the time was not strong enough to require companies to tell regulators of safety information.