![HT-2022-000043 - [2024] EWHC 3180 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Mr Roger ter Haar KC
Mr Roger ter Haar KC :
Introduction
There are three sets of proceedings before the Court:
The first claim relates to breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (“the Regulations”) in relation to the allocation of orders and/or direct contracts for the supply of lateral flow testing devices (“Tests”) for the detection of Covid-19 (“the Procurement Claim”);
The second claim relates to the allegedly wrongful rejection by the Defendant of 68.4 million Tests (“the Wrongful Rejection Claim”);
The third claim (which the Claimants say arises from disclosure given by the Defendant in the first and second claims) relates to alleged further breaches of the Regulations in relation to the allocation of orders and/or direct contracts for the Tests and alleged unequal treatment of bidders in relation to alleged breaches of Chinese labour law (“the Third Claim”).
Before me there were three applications:
The Defendant’s application to strike out the Claimants’ first and second claims;
The Claimants’ application for disclosure guidance;
The Claimants’ application for directions in relation to the form and management of the Third Claim.
- Heading
- Mr Roger ter Haar KC
- The factual background
- The First and Second Claims
- Waksman J.’s Order for Disclosure
- Mr Jason Coppel KC’s Order
- The Defendant’s Strike Out Application
- The Law: Disclosure and Preservation of Documents
- The Law: Applications to Strike Out under CPR r. 3.4
- The Law: Res judicata and interlocutory decisions
- Were the Claimants in breach of an order of the Court?
- Was the Claimants’ breach serious and significant?
- Was there a good reason for the default?
- Conclusions