Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (t/a Hitex) & Ors v Uniserve Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1212 (02 October 2025)

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (t/a Hitex) & Ors v Uniserve Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1212 (02 October 2025)

Uniserve was entitled to terminate the supply contract on 11 July 2020 because Hitex failed to have sufficient masks available for delivery, taking into account 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.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1212
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
02 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Hitex's claim dismissed; Commission appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Misrepresentation, Damages for Non Acceptance, Variation of Contract, Repudiation, Supply of Goods, Commission Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Termination of Contract Misrepresentation Damages for Non Acceptance Variation of Contract Repudiation 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Uniserve was entitled to terminate the supply contract
  2. 2 Whether Uniserve was entitled to rescind for misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether Hitex was entitled to damages for non-acceptance

Ratio Decidendi

Uniserve was entitled to terminate the supply contract on 11 July 2020 because Hitex failed to have sufficient masks available for delivery, taking into account 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.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Hitex's claim dismissed; Commission appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Hitex's claim for damages under the supply contract dismissed.
  • No further commission payable under the commission contract.