CA-2024-001949 & CA-2024-001935 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1212

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

The grounds of appeal

The grounds of appeal

45.

On behalf of Uniserve seven grounds of appeal were advanced. These were, omitting ground 5 for which Uniserve did not obtain permission to appeal:

(1)

It was procedurally unfair for the judge to conclude that Hitex had accepted Uniserve’s renunciation of the contract when that was contrary to Hitex’s own pleaded case; in any event the conclusion was wrong because Hitex could not accept a renunciation without a clear communication to Uniserve that it was doing so.

(2)

The basis on which damages were awarded to Hitex was also procedurally unfair because Hitex had failed to continue to perform the contract and had advanced no market price if there was an available market.

(3)

The judge was wrong to hold that the revised schedule was a variation of the contract.

(4)

The judge failed to consider Uniserve’s alternative case that it terminated the supply contract on 11^th July 2020; having accepted the Production Reports as reliable, and it being common ground that 15% of Hitex’s stock was reserved for the Jordanian government, the judge should have concluded that Hitex did not have sufficient stock to meet the deliveries due on 21^st June and 5^th July 2020, so that Uniserve was entitled to terminate the contract on 11^th July 2020.

(5)

…

(6)

The judge’s conclusion that Hitex did not make or authorise the representations contained in the Waller email was contrary to Hitex’s pleaded case.

(7)

The judge applied the wrong test for reliance on a misrepresentation.

46.

By a respondent’s notice Hitex contended that the judge was wrong to find that it was obliged to maintain sufficient stock to fulfil all deliveries that had fallen due, notwithstanding that Uniserve had failed to accept such deliveries; the judge ought to have found that Hitex was entitled to re-tender the same goods for each shipment in mitigation of its loss.