Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v Primer Design Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 1071 (TCC) (30 April 2024)

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v Primer Design Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 1071 (TCC) (30 April 2024)

Summary judgment is refused because, despite apparent expert agreement on lack of robustness, there remain triable issues as to the cause of invalid results and whether these constitute a breach of the contractual warranties. The defendants are permitted to serve a further expert report addressing both agreed and not agreed matters, with the claimant given time to respond, to ensure fairness and efficient resolution at trial.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1071 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; First Defendant: Primer Design Limited; Second Defendant: Novacyt S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute (technology and Construction Court) / Pre Trial Review; Applications for Summary Judgment and Extension of Time for Expert Evidence
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; defendants' application to serve further expert evidence granted; directions given for sequential expert reports.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Warranties, Expert Evidence, Summary Judgment, Directions for Trial
Contract Law Commercial Law Technology Law Breach of Contract Warranties Expert Evidence Summary Judgment Directions for Trial

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Claimant

Primer Design Limited

First Defendant

Novacyt S.A.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute (technology and Construction Court) / Pre Trial Review; Applications for Summary Judgment and Extension of Time for Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Exsig COVID-19 testing kits supplied breached contractual warranties of quality and conformity to specification
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted based on expert agreement regarding lack of robustness
  3. 3 Whether defendants should be permitted to serve further expert evidence beyond matters not agreed in the joint statement

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is refused because, despite apparent expert agreement on lack of robustness, there remain triable issues as to the cause of invalid results and whether these constitute a breach of the contractual warranties. The defendants are permitted to serve a further expert report addressing both agreed and not agreed matters, with the claimant given time to respond, to ensure fairness and efficient resolution at trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; defendants' application to serve further expert evidence granted; directions given for sequential expert reports.

Orders

  • Defendants to serve Dr. Owens' expert report by 3rd May 2024.
  • Claimant to serve Dr. Huggett's responsive expert report by 17th May 2024.