Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1725 (Ch) (04 July 2024)

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1725 (Ch) (04 July 2024)

Uniserve failed to prove that Hitex made or authorised the alleged misrepresentations, or that Uniserve relied on them when entering the Supply Contract. Due diligence contradicted the representations, and Uniserve proceeded with knowledge of production limitations. No fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1725 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (Hitex); Claimant: Caramel Sales Limited; Claimant: David Popeck; Defendant: Uniserve Limited; Third Party: Maxitrac Limited; Fourth Party: Andrew Stead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims for misrepresentation and breach by Uniserve dismissed. Hitex's claim for damages and Caramel/Mr Popeck's commission claim dismissed. Counterclaim by Uniserve dismissed. Third and Fourth Party claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Damages, Agency, Estoppel, Guarantee, Freezing Orders
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Damages Agency Estoppel +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (Hitex)

Claimant

Caramel Sales Limited

Claimant

David Popeck

Claimant

Uniserve Limited

Defendant

Maxitrac Limited

Third Party

Andrew Stead

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Uniserve was induced to sign the Supply Contract by fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether Hitex breached its original and/or revised delivery obligations
  3. 3 Whether Uniserve accepted an alternative delivery schedule or is estopped from relying on the original schedule

Ratio Decidendi

Uniserve failed to prove that Hitex made or authorised the alleged misrepresentations, or that Uniserve relied on them when entering the Supply Contract. Due diligence contradicted the representations, and Uniserve proceeded with knowledge of production limitations. No fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation was established. Hitex was not in breach of its delivery obligations as revised by agreement. Uniserve's termination was not valid. Maxitrac and Dr Stead are not liable to indemnify Uniserve as Uniserve is not liable to the Claimants.

Court Disposition

Claims for misrepresentation and breach by Uniserve dismissed. Hitex's claim for damages and Caramel/Mr Popeck's commission claim dismissed. Counterclaim by Uniserve dismissed. Third and Fourth Party claims dismissed.

Orders

  • No damages awarded to any party
  • No commission awarded to Caramel or Mr Popeck