Tom Ogg, led by Philip Moser KC of Monckton Chambers, successfully resisted a summary judgment application by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) in a Covid-19 PPE case. Tom and Philip were instructed by Kleymans & Co. Solicitors.
UK Global Healthcare (“UKGH”) in 2020 contracted to supply 320m medical gloves and were paid £15.35m to do so. However, no gloves have yet been delivered. The DHSC applied for summary judgment on UKGH’s claim against the DHSC, and on the DHSC’s counterclaim for repayment of the £15.35m. Constable J dismissed DHSC’s application in a judgment dated 12 March 2026, a copy of which is here.
UKGH’s case is that the DHSC prevented delivery by insisting on extra-contractual testing, wrongly rejected the goods on the basis of that testing, and inter alia waived or were estopped from relying the delivery dates in the contracts – causing UKGH significant damage. Constable J found that case had a real prospect of success on the facts, including by reference to the ‘prevention principle’, which he summarised at paragraph 32 as follows: “when there is a stipulation for work to be done in a limited time, if one party by his conduct – it may be quite legitimate conduct, such as ordering extra work – renders it impossible or impracticable for the other party to do his work within the stipulated time, then the one whose conduct caused the trouble can no longer insist upon strict adherence to the time stated”.
DHSC in their counterclaim pursues repayment on the basis of the expiry of the contracts. However, pursuant to the ‘prevention principle of interpretation’, Constable J found that the relevant repayment clause cannot operate to require repayment in circumstances in which the DHSC had been the cause of non-delivery of the goods. DHSC’s application for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.
