Weatherford Global v Hydropath
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Weatherford sued Hydropath over allegedly unsafe hydroflow physical water conditioners causing sparks. The court dismissed Hydropath's late submission of experimental proof based on a 2013 Intertek report, although allowing it in evidence with minimal weight.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD: The background to the defendant's application today needs to be explained by reference to the type of proceedings these are. I borrow this from Mr Culligan's skeleton argument for the hearing on 2 April 2014 before me.
Weatherford is an oil field services company. This claim arises out of the supply of equipment by the defendant, Hydropath, of certain products called hydroflow physical water conditioners. These products were intended to be mounted on pipes so as to prevent scale build-up. Hydropath manufacturers a particular variant of hydroflow product for the oil industry. These are called "Clearwell" products. They are intended particularly to prevent scale build up in well head pipelines. The products work by generating an electric field within the pipe and the liquid inside this field encourages scale bicarbonates to precipitate in the solution as opposed to against the pipe wall.
Products in this case were purchased by Weatherford under the terms of an agreement with Hydropath. At the same time the parties entered into a tripartite agreement with Clearwell International Ltd, which is a Hydropath affiliate and a holding company for the Clearwell intellectual property.
Essentially, the product in question is mounted on a section of pipe which will carry oil or related-type products. It is said to be common ground that the products provided are liable to produce sparks when a connection is formed between either side of the pipe on which the product is installed.
Weatherford say in these proceedings that this sparking makes the product unsafe and in breach of the supply agreement. They refer to what is said to be "an array of warranties" in the supply agreement, but this is substantively and substantially disputed by Hydropath.
There are various related third party type proceedings to which Clearwell is a party. It seems to be Weatherford's position that as a result of the dangers created, they say, by the facility, or possibility at least, that the products produce sparks, they can no longer market the products in that form. They have lost, they say, business as a result.
There is a counterclaim by Hydropath who suggest that the claimant has misused and abused their intellectual property in a number of respects. I am told that the claim may run to millions of pounds, although it has not yet been quantified. The counterclaim is, as far as I can tell, rather more modest than millions of pounds.
The proceedings have al