Mumratheevergiving
Or perhaps these suppliers that were issued contracts for PPE by OUR Gov:
Just reading the correspondence regarding PestFix in the Good Law Project link;
3rd July: We received a response from Osborne Clark, who are instructed on behalf of PestFix:
"Our client considers that the claim has been brought on the basis of multiple factual misapprehensions on the part of your clients and is in any event wholly without merit."
"Our client’s position is that of an established and respected company that has stepped up to assist DHSC and the National Health Service at a time of unprecedented global crisis."...
Background
"Our client has supplied a broad range of products to more than fifteen NHS Trusts over the last eleven years. (As noted at paragraph 21 of the DHSC Response, some NHS Trusts choose to source PPE themselves rather than work through SSCL.) On every occasion, the products supplied by our client have met the rigorous safety standards required of them: our client is thus an established and reliable source of supplies to the NHS. In the introductory paragraphs to the PAP Letter, you have suggested that our client has never supplied products to be used by the NHS.This is simply untrue–it is an assertion by your clients based on wrong assumptions" ...
"Our client is highly experienced in sourcing PPE and is well placed to ensure that the PPE it purchases and supplies is specified correctly for the required use"...
"The products supplied by our clients for the protection of users of airborne chemicals are of extremely high quality, and subject to numerous rigorous safety standards and routine checks"...
"In mid to late March 2020...our client was contacted by multiple public bodies, including NHS trusts, with requests for the supply of PPE."
^"During March 2020, being mindful of the potential crisis in PPE supply facing the NHS and wanting to use its experience and contacts to help, our client’s directors began intensive efforts
for building a supply-chain which would be able to procure large quantities of medical-grade PPE from China. In building that supply chain, our client drew upon its Company Director’s established business network in the Far East. Our client also drew upon the Company Director’s personal contacts, including his wife (a veterinary surgeon) and her extended family who are based in China. In circumstances where the difficulties with air travel made it difficult for make visits to China, these family members were able to visit and negotiate directly with factories producing compliant products, in order to secure production space that might fulfil the requirements for PPE supplies including for use in health and social care settings."^
"The rapid establishment of our client’s PPE-focussed supply chain in China was built upon–and was possible only by reason of–the company's experience in sourcing high quality products from factories in China for supply in the UK since 2011"...
^"Your clients appear also to have no concern with respect to the damage being caused to our client's reputation as a result of the ongoing social media campaign being waged on the basis of inaccuracies, for generating ‘crowdfunded’ donations to fund the litigation.The true object of the campaign and the litigation appears to be political, namely to level criticisms at the current government.
The harm to our client’s reputation is simply ‘collateral damage’.This is very unfair to our client, especially in light of its having stepped up to help the NHS at a critical time"^ ...
"For all these reasons, the claim that your clients have issued is factually and legally baseless"...