HT-2022-000043 - [2024] EWHC 3180 (TCC)

Fecha: 11-Dic-2024

Waksman J.’s Order for Disclosure

Waksman J.’s Order for Disclosure

16.

A CMC in respect of the first and second claims took place before Waksman J. on 9 June 2023.

17.

At the CMC the trial of the first and second claims was listed for 12 days (excluding 2 judicial reading days) commencing on 7 July 2025.

18.

Paragraphs 13 to 16 of Waksman J.’s order provided as follows [PCMB/25/203]:

13.

Disclosure is to be given by each party in accordance with Practice Direction 57AD – Disclosure in the Business and Property Courts.

14.

All references hereinafter to the Disclosure Review Document are references to the document appended to this Order and not to any version filed by the parties in advance of this hearing.

15.

Sections 1A and 1B of the Disclosure review Document is approved in the form annexed to this Order and Extended Disclosure is ordered as set out therein.

16.

The Issues for Disclosure, the Models of Extended Disclosure and the Model C requests are those endorsed and/or ordered by the Court and set out in sections 1A and 1B of the Disclosure Review Document.

19.

Section 1A of the Disclosure Review Document identified the following issues, amongst others [PCMB/25/207-211]:

The extent to which responses relevant to Xiamen Boson Biotech Co. Ltd. (“Boson”) in the Standard Selection Questionnaire were inaccurate, false or misleading (including all documents supporting the statements made in these responses), and, if so, whether Boson, whether Boson and/or the Claimants knew or should have known that such responses were inaccurate, false or misleading.

….

3A. The date and circumstances in which the Claimant became aware of the existence of the Intertek Audit Report dated August 2021 and/or whether the Claimants considered the findings to that report to constitute a material change of information provided and/or to render the information in Boson’s SSQ false and misleading.

The contractual relationship between the Claimants, MP Bio and Boson whether such contracts were made and evidenced in writing, orally or by conduct.

….

When were the Goods manufactured?

….

12.The basis on which the QIMA Audit was carried out and compiled, including:

•

The documents and information requested by QIMA before and during the course of the audit;

•

The documents and information made available by Boson during the course of the audit;

•

How the QIMA report was produced, including notes taken for the purposes of preparing the final and any draft reports;

•

Any correspondence between the Defendant, Uniserve and QIMA relating to the report;

•

The reasons for the second QIMA Audit and the reasons why it did not go ahead, including whether and why the Defendant and/or the Auditors were prevented from gaining access to Boson’s factory;

•

Whether Boson’s Licence from the Jimei District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau was provided to and considered by the QIMA auditor.

12A.Why Mr Parsons concluded that Boson would not have sufficient information to enable it to pass the audit and/or why the Claimants withdrew their objection to the QIMA report, including:

•

Any correspondence between the Claimants and MP Bio or Boson in relation to the available evidence and information

•

Why Boson did not inform the Claimants of the existence of the Licence.

13.

Whether the Licence is authentic, how and when it was procured, whether Boson had the benefit of the Licence and the scope/extent of the Licence.

20.

It is to be noted that in the Case Management Information Sheet filed by the Claimants they declared that they intended to call one or more witnesses from Xiamen Boson Biotech Co Ltd [PCMB/33/240]. Permission to call witnesses was granted by paragraphs 21 to 24 of Waksman J.’s order [PCMB/25/204].