The High Court has ordered a modular trial in a dispute between Biomass Heating Solutions Limited (BHSL) and Geurts International BV over heat exchangers supplied for BHSL’s biomass units. The first module is to determine the terms and conditions applying to each of 12 contracts and any remaining question of whether Irish or Dutch law governs the relationship or parts of it.
BHSL alleges that defects in heat exchangers supplied by Geurts caused failures in units installed at poultry farms in England, leading to losses. Geurts admits a mistake in the placement of a distributor pipe in the first exchanger but says the issue was minor and corrected in later units. It denies responsibility for the alleged failures and says it supplied exchangers, not complete systems. These are disputed claims; the court was dealing with pre-trial applications, not deciding liability.
The parties also dispute which contractual terms apply. BHSL relies on terms it says were agreed, while Geurts relies on its own general terms, including Dutch governing-law and jurisdiction clauses and limits on liability. The court rejected the argument that a decision by a court in The Hague had already settled the contractual terms. That court had decided jurisdiction without an extensive examination of disputed evidence. The High Court said the parties must still prove their respective cases about the contracts at trial.
The judge concluded that resolving the contract terms and governing law first could help focus preparation and save time and expense in the remainder of the case. He recognised that BHSL would lose the trial date already fixed for May 2023, but found the expected benefits sufficient to justify a modular trial. The order’s final form was to be settled after hearing the parties; the judge said the first module should also resolve any governing-law question that remained beyond identifying the applicable terms.
The court also ordered Geurts to file a supplemental affidavit of discovery. It must address calculations and data sheets mentioned in two 2017 emails, identify original designs where later modified designs were discovered, apply appropriate Dutch-language search terms, explain its engagement with external consultants and any further responsive documents, and provide HTRI calculations in their original native form or explain why it cannot.
The court declined to order a general expansion of the discovery search or require Geurts to re-present calculations with dates and unit references. It said no outstanding discovery application concerning categories 1 or 3 would affect the first module. The judge indicated that the module could be heard on the trial date of 16 May 2023, with preparation directions still to be addressed. The judgment did not determine the underlying claims or the defendant’s counterclaim.