Search
UK Global Healthcare Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2026] EWHC 561 (TCC)
This claim arises out of two contracts for the supply of 320 million medical gloves during the Covid-19 pandemic. Time was of the essence as stipulated in both contracts, which also had expiry clauses, the dates for which have passed. The gloves remain undelivered. DHSC made an upfront payment of £15,350,000 which it sought to reclaim summarily, having sent a letter of termination and/or because the expiry clauses require repayment. UKGH’s position is that it has remained ready, willing and able to supply the gloves and that DHSC waived compliance with the delivery dates, and/or is now estopped from relying on either the delivery dates or the expiry dates, and that as a result the purported termination was unlawful.
On termination, the Court (Constable J) found that If UKGH made out its case either in respect of the delivery dates or rejection, it would follow that there was a real prospect that UKGH could establish that the termination was unlawful.
In relation to the expiry clauses the judge applied a ‘prevention principle of interpretation’, a principle of construction that a contract should be interpreted, so far as possible, in such a manner as not to permit one party to take advantage of their own breach of that contract; and found that the repayment requirement in the expiry clauses was not operative to require reimbursement in circumstances where the non-delivery of the goods has been caused by a breach on the part of DHSC.
The Application was dismissed accordingly.
Philip Moser KC acted for the successful Claimant, instructed by Kleyman & Co.