Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Limited

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Limited

Uniserve was entitled to terminate the supply contract because Hitex failed to have sufficient stock available for delivery as required under the revised schedule, after accounting for the 15% reserved for the Jordanian government. Hitex was not entitled to damages for non-acceptance as it was not in a position to perform its obligations. The judge erred by awarding damages on a basis not pleaded or argued. The commission claim failed as no further commission was payable once the supply contract was validly terminated.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (trading as Hitex); Respondent/claimant: Caramel Sales Limited; Respondent/claimant: David Popeck; Appellant/defendant: Uniserve Limited; Third Party: Maxitrac Limited; Fourth Party: Andrew Stead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Hitex's claim for damages dismissed; commission appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Repudiatory Breach, Misrepresentation, Damages for Non Acceptance, Variation of Contract, Commission Agreements, Supply of Goods, Termination of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Repudiatory Breach Misrepresentation Damages for Non Acceptance Variation of Contract Commission Agreements Supply of Goods +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (trading as Hitex)

Respondent/claimant

Caramel Sales Limited

Respondent/claimant

David Popeck

Respondent/claimant

Uniserve Limited

Appellant/defendant

Maxitrac Limited

Third Party

Andrew Stead

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Uniserve was entitled to terminate the supply contract for breach or misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether Hitex was entitled to damages for non-acceptance of goods
  3. 3 Whether commission was payable on undelivered goods under the commission contract

Ratio Decidendi

Uniserve was entitled to terminate the supply contract because Hitex failed to have sufficient stock available for delivery as required under the revised schedule, after accounting for the 15% reserved for the Jordanian government. Hitex was not entitled to damages for non-acceptance as it was not in a position to perform its obligations. The judge erred by awarding damages on a basis not pleaded or argued. The commission claim failed as no further commission was payable once the supply contract was validly terminated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Hitex's claim for damages dismissed; commission appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Hitex's claim for damages against Uniserve is dismissed.
  • Commission appeal by Caramel/Mr Popeck is dismissed.