SCCSI
(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)
Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes
Presented by
Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International
sccsinternational.org
UK Global Healthcare Limited v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
[2026] EWHC 561 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Before Mr Justice Constable | Heard 25 February 2026 | Handed down 12 March 2026
Interactive Process Flow | Summary judgment on advance payments for undelivered pandemic gloves
Case Analysis Process Flow
0 of 7 nodes explored
1. Case Overview
+
Case: UK Global Healthcare Limited v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2026] EWHC 561 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Mr Justice Constable
Hearing Date: 25 February 2026
Judgment Date: 12 March 2026
Case No: HT-2024-000438

DHSC sought summary judgment for repayment of £15,350,000 paid in advance under two 2020 contracts for 320 million gloves, none of which were delivered. It also sought strike-out of UK Global Healthcare's claim. UKGH said DHSC introduced testing, rejected compliant goods, prevented delivery, waived dates and wrongfully terminated the contracts (paragraphs 1-5 and 85-103).

Central Legal Test: The court asked whether UKGH had a real prospect of establishing agreed extension, waiver, estoppel, prevention, wrongful rejection or failure to cooperate, and whether those matters answered termination, expiry and the repayment clause. Fact-sensitive contractual disputes were unsuitable for summary disposal (paragraphs 85-103).
Contracts
+
Two May and June 2020 contracts required 320 million gloves by 30 June and 31 July. Time was stated to be of the essence and DHSC paid £15,350,000 upfront (paragraphs 4 and 6-7).
No Delivery
+
No gloves were delivered. DHSC accepted its stated October 2020 termination grounds were invalid but relied on other existing grounds and later expiry (paragraph 4).
2. Procedural History
+
Counterclaim
+
DHSC sought immediate repayment plus interest and strike-out of UKGH's damages claim (paragraph 1).
Evidence Conflict
+
The application depended on communications, testing and conduct that required factual evaluation at trial (paragraphs 85-103).
3. Defendant's Position
+

DHSC said deadlines were essential, the supplier never delivered, alternative termination grounds existed and the expiry repayment clause mechanically required return of all advance sums.

Delivery Failure
+
It relied on missed contractual dates and non-delivery through expiry.
Repayment Clause
+
It said clause 13.1 required reimbursement for advance payments connected with goods not delivered at expiry (paragraphs 93-99).
4. Claimant's Position
+

UKGH said DHSC required extra-contractual pre-delivery testing, represented that dates would be formalised later, rejected gloves on flawed tests and failed to cooperate on alternatives.

Waiver and Estoppel
+
It relied on late-June exchanges as showing that original delivery dates would not be enforced and that it spent resources in reliance (paragraphs 85-86).
Prevention and Rejection
+
It said extra testing made deadlines impossible and the July rejection or failure to revisit it prevented supply (paragraphs 87-90).
5. Court's Analysis
+
Triable Waiver and Estoppel
+
The exchanges could show agreement to reasonable extensions, waiver or estoppel, including the 'something more' needed despite a no-oral-modification clause (paragraphs 85-86).
Prevention Arguable
+
If DHSC's additional testing made contractual dates impossible and no extension mechanism applied, time might be at large, defeating reliance on original deadlines (paragraph 87).
Rejection and Cooperation
+
UKGH had a real prospect of proving flawed testing, wrongful rejection and lack of cooperation over compliant alternative gloves (paragraphs 88-90).
Termination Damages
+
If delivery or rejection cases succeeded, termination could be wrongful and sound in substantial damages even though the repudiation was not accepted (paragraphs 90-92).
Repayment Not Mechanically Separable
+
Clause 13.1 could be construed not to reward DHSC for non-delivery it caused. In any event, the connected damages claim and possible set-off made summary repayment inappropriate (paragraphs 93-102).
6. Decision and Outcome
+
Winner: The Claimant and Respondent (UK Global Healthcare Limited) succeeded.

Result: DHSC's summary judgment and strike-out application was dismissed. Delivery, waiver, prevention, rejection, termination, expiry, repayment and damages issues were left for trial (paragraph 103). The Defendant and Applicant (Secretary of State for Health and Social Care) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: DHSC did not obtain immediate return of the £15,350,000, and UKGH retained its opportunity to prove wrongful conduct and damages at trial.
No Summary Repayment
+
The £15,350,000 counterclaim was not determined summarily.
Claim Continues
+
UKGH's contractual damages case was not struck out (paragraph 103).
7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points
+
Prevention
+
A party may be unable to rely on a deadline or repayment consequence where its own requested conduct prevented compliance.
No-oral-modification
+
Clear shared recognition that a formal amendment is needed, coupled with reliance, may provide the additional element for an estoppel argument.
Summary Judgment
+
Interdependent waiver, testing, rejection, expiry and damages issues requiring factual findings should ordinarily proceed to trial.
Practice Implications
+
For Claimants:
Record every requested change to tests, approvals and delivery dates and reserve contractual rights. Link reliance expenditure to the communications relied on for waiver or estoppel.
For Defendants:
If extra-contractual assurance or testing is requested, issue a written variation preserving delivery and expiry consequences. Give technically supported rejection reasons and respond to contrary tests.
General Practice Points:
Advance-payment recovery cannot always be isolated from the conduct said to have prevented delivery and the supplier's connected damages claim.
Legal Disclaimer
This interactive process flow is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.
This is a module from the Society of Construction Claims Specialists International's Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes.
sccsinternational.org