The Essential Technical Requirements Document (“ETRD”)
The Essential Technical Requirements Document (“ETRD”)
On 23 May 2020, the Government published a document setting out “Essential technical requirements for gowns, gloves, masks, respirators, eye protection and coveralls where no CE mark has been obtained or where an alternative use is proposed of an existing CE marked product”. The document was prepared by the MHRA and the HSE, fairly obviously in the light of the Recommendation.It is relied on by Medpro as highly relevant to contractual construction.
The ETRD set out the approach that the MHRA intended to take following the Commission Recommendation. It pointed out that:
“Normally, such products must meet requirements set out in the relevant legislation as listed above and hold a valid CE mark before being placed on the market or put into service. However, bearing in mind the health and safety is the upmost priority, it is of paramount importance to ensure that the most appropriate PPE and medical devices ensuring adequate protection are swiftly made available to those who need it most during the Covid-19 threat.”
“Where market surveillance authorities find that PPE (Health and Safety Executive HSE) or medical devices (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency MHRA) ensure an adequate level of health and safety in accordance with the essential requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/425 or the requirements of Directive 93/42/EEC even though the conformity assessment procedures, including the affixing of CE marking, have not been fully finalised according to the harmonised rules they may authorise the making available of these products for supply to frontline healthcare if sourced by Government and with the caveat that they are not distributed more widely. MHRA call this exemption from devices regulation a derogation.”
It then explained key criteria thus:
“Before such COVID-19 related products are purchased by or donated to the Government/NHS to be used by NHS healthcare workers, it must meet all the following criteria to ensure they are fit for the purpose intended, will work in line with stated performance and have been assessed as such.
The products are therefore designed and manufactured in accordance with either:
a) a relevant harmonised European standard, or
b) any of the standards referred to in the WHO guidelines or,
c) any other non-EU standard or technical solution, provided that the specific solution ensures that the product complies with the applicable essential health and safety requirements”
Its purpose was then set out: “This guidance sets out the essential technical and labelling requirements for these products to support meeting the criteria specified above.” It, however, stated that “Meeting these requirements does not guarantee clearance of an application by MHRA or HSE, as relevant. Robust scrutiny by MHRA or HSE of the information in your application will take place before a decision is made to allow you to supply to the UK.”
Table 1 of the ETRD then set out the “essential requirements” for medical devices, where “must” defined essential requirements and “should” defined requirements which were highly desirable but where consideration could be given to omitting the requirement to speed up provision. It listed a number of items - surgical face masks, gloves, and the like.
Under “sterile gowns” the table included the requirement:
“Must be validated as sterile with Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10-6”
The parties are in agreement that this was a requirement of the supply of gowns in question here.
More controversial was the final column (headed “relevant standards for design and performance”) which stated:
“BS EN 13795-1:2019 Surgical clothing and drapes - Requirements and test methods
or
AAMI PB70 (all levels accepted or equivalent)
and BS EN 556-1:2001 for terminally sterilised medical devices (where applicable) or equivalent technical solutions”
AAMI PB 70 is the approximate US equivalent of ES 13795. As will be apparent from the preceding section this notation indicated a requirement for compliance with a construction/performance standard and a sterility requirement.
- Heading
- This judgment was handed down by the court in person and by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and released to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be
- Sterility 101: An Introduction to sterility and Medical Device Law
- ISO 11137: Requirements of a Sterilisation Process
- Sterility level: EN 556
- Medical devices: MD Directive and MDR 2002
- Other relevant standards
- Summary
- Factual Background
- The PPE Cell
- The Recommendation
- The Essential Technical Requirements Document (“ETRD”)
- Precontractual Negotiations
- Closing
- Final Approval and Contract
- Manufacturing, delivery and inspection
- Rejection of the Gowns
- Testing of Gowns
- The Trial and issues
- The Contractual Claim
- The parties’ cases on construction
- The significance of the accepted obligation to deliver gowns with an SAL of 10 -6
- Was there breach of a requirement for a formally validated process in this case?
- Did the Contract require EN 556 or an Equivalent Technical Solution?
- Did the Contract require CE marking?
- The original case: Statistics, Physical Testing and Sterility
- Estoppel and related concepts
- Representation/assumption: clear?
- Approval of an ETS in place of EN 556
- Meeting the technical requirements/ No requirement to have a CE mark with an NB number
- Reliance
- Estoppel and validated process/SAL
- Non-Reliance and Entire Understanding Clauses
- Remedies
- Was the right to reject lost?
- Damages: The value of the Gowns and Mitigation
- Damages: The Claim for Storage Costs and Gown Disposal
- The Counterclaim
- Common mistake and rectification
- Negligent misstatement
- Conclusion
- Annex 1: Statistics, Physical testing and Sterility
- The testing
- Statistics
- The evidence and its implications
- The evidence gap
- Conclusion
- Annex 2: Relevant provisions of the Contract The Contract between DHSC and Medpro consists of a front page and several documents
- Order Form Section 5 of the Order Form “ The Supplier shall supply the deliverable described below on the terms set out in this Order Form and the Schedules and Annex A. Unless the Contract otherwise requires, c
- Section 7 of the Order Form is headed “Specification” and states: “The specification of the Deliverables is as set out in Annex A.1 – A.9 [26.06.2020]. Not as embedded/attached documents. Please confi
- Schedule 1
- Clause 2.2 of Schedule 1 states that the Order Form is to “ include, without limitation, the Authority’s requirements in the form of its specification and other statements and requirements, the Suppli
- Clause 3 of Schedule 1 is headed “ Quality assurance standards ” and states: “The following quality assurance standards shall apply, as appropriate, to the manufacture, supply, and/or installation of
- Conclusions
![CL-2022-000676 - [2025] EWHC 2486 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)