Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

SciPharm Sarl v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

A company sued a hospital for breaking a drug development deal. The court agreed the hospital was at fault but the company’s claim for money was cut down because of some missing paperwork. After reviewing all the remaining evidence and the hospital's arguments, the court decided how much money the company should get, with a few small points to be cleared up later.

Key Facts

  • SciPharm S.a.r.l. (Claimant) sued Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Defendant) for breach of a pharmaceutical drug development agreement (DA).
  • The Defendant was found liable for breach of contract in a previous judgment.
  • The Claimant claimed €1,794,932 in damages.
  • The claim was significantly reduced due to irrecoverable expenses paid by a related company (CompLex).
  • The court considered various items of loss, including production, validation, stability studies, and emergency batches.

Legal Principles

The Claimant is entitled to compensation for losses directly attributed to the Defendant's failure to fulfill its obligations under the DA.

First Judgment, §172

The absence of a supply agreement does not prevent recovery of costs incurred by the Claimant to ensure fulfillment of the Defendant’s obligations by a third party.

First Judgment, §172

Expenses paid by a company not part of the Claimant's group are not recoverable.

First Judgment, §175

Factual findings should be based on inferences drawn from documentary evidence and known probable facts.

First Judgment, §8 (referencing Leggatt J in Gestmin)

Outcomes

The court disallowed certain claims due to lack of invoices or proof of payment.

The court required clear evidence of costs incurred by the Claimant.

The court allowed other claims, finding sufficient evidence to support the Claimant's costs.

The court accepted the Claimant's explanations and supporting documentation for various costs related to process validation and other obligations under the DA.

A final award of damages was made to the Claimant, subject to clarification on specific items and further proceedings to determine interest, costs, and potential appeals.

The court meticulously reviewed the Consolidated Schedule of Loss, considering both parties' submissions on each disputed item. While reducing the initial claim, the court awarded damages based on the weight of the evidence.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.