The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Limited

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Limited

The defendant was in breach of contract for failing to supply gowns with validated process demonstrating sterility to SAL 10-6, compliance with EN 556-1, and valid CE marking with notified body number. The claimant did not validly reject the goods within a reasonable time, but is entitled to recover the contract price as damages because the gowns had no value for their intended purpose and there was no realistic opportunity to mitigate loss. The claim for storage costs is dismissed for lack of proof. The defendant's counterclaims fail.

Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; Defendant: PPE Medpro Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
judgment for claimant in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Sale of Goods, Sterility Assurance, CE Marking, Estoppel, Mitigation of Damages
Contract Law Public Procurement Medical Device Regulation Breach of Contract Sale of Goods Sterility Assurance CE Marking Estoppel +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Claimant

PPE Medpro Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant supply gowns compliant with the contractually required sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10-6?
  2. 2 Did the contract require compliance with EN 556-1 and valid CE marking with notified body number?
  3. 3 Was there a valid rejection of the goods by the claimant?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was in breach of contract for failing to supply gowns with validated process demonstrating sterility to SAL 10-6, compliance with EN 556-1, and valid CE marking with notified body number. The claimant did not validly reject the goods within a reasonable time, but is entitled to recover the contract price as damages because the gowns had no value for their intended purpose and there was no realistic opportunity to mitigate loss. The claim for storage costs is dismissed for lack of proof. The defendant's counterclaims fail.

Court Disposition

judgment for claimant in part

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £121,999,219.20 as damages for breach of contract.
  • Claim for storage costs of £8,648,691 dismissed.