Pharmapac UK Ltd v Elev8 Global Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2449 (Comm) (07 September 2023)

Pharmapac UK Ltd v Elev8 Global Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2449 (Comm) (07 September 2023)

The First Defendant is liable for breach of contract for supplying counterfeit masks; the Second Defendant is not personally liable as fraudulent misrepresentation was not established—he was grossly careless but not dishonest or reckless as to the truth of his representations.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2449 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Pharmapac UK Ltd; First Defendant: Elev8 Global Ltd; Second Defendant: Ajay Arvindray Patel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Claim / Trial Judgment Following Summary Judgment Against First Defendant; Assessment of Damages and Liability of Second Defendant
Outcome
Claim against First Defendant succeeds; claim against Second Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Damages Assessment, Counterfeit Goods, Personal Liability of Directors
Contract Law Commercial Law Tort Law Breach of Contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation Damages Assessment Counterfeit Goods Personal Liability of Directors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pharmapac UK Ltd

Claimant

Elev8 Global Ltd

First Defendant

Ajay Arvindray Patel

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Claim / Trial Judgment Following Summary Judgment Against First Defendant; Assessment of Damages and Liability of Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant breached contract by supplying counterfeit goods
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant is personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation
  3. 3 Assessment of damages for breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant is liable for breach of contract for supplying counterfeit masks; the Second Defendant is not personally liable as fraudulent misrepresentation was not established—he was grossly careless but not dishonest or reckless as to the truth of his representations.

Court Disposition

Claim against First Defendant succeeds; claim against Second Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for Claimant against First Defendant for £1,596,000 (contract price) and £21,141.12 (warehousing costs, after 20% reduction).
  • Claim against Second Defendant dismissed.