The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users. Held: Amstrad could only be liable as a joint tortfeasor. If they were not a joint tortfeasor they would be under no tortious liability. … Continue reading CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc: HL 12 May 1988
Europa Directive 85/374/EEC – Liability for defective products Articles 3 and 11 Mistake in the classification of ‘producer’ Judicial proceedings – Application for substitution of the producer for the original defendant Expiry of the limitation period.(Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice) The claimant sought damages after consuming a defective medicine supplied by the company. … Continue reading Aventis Pasteur v O’Byrne (Environment And Consumers): ECJ 2 Dec 2009
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The claimant had been vaccinated with a HIB vaccine. He was severely injured and it was said that the vaccine was the cause, and a claim made under the 1987 Act. Originally the claim was made against a UK company, but it should have been against that company’s parent company. When the correct company was … Continue reading OB v Aventis Pasteur SA: HL 11 Jun 2008
The claimant sought damages under the 1967 Act asserting injury from a drug sold by the defendant. Proceedings had been mistakenly commenced against Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd within the limitation period, but outside the limitation period, it was sought to substitute the actual manufacturer Aventis Pasteur SA. Held: The substitution should be made. The sole … Continue reading O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd: QBD 20 Oct 2006
The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the ‘long stop’ limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong manufacturer, and the error only came to light outside the limitation period. It was said … Continue reading Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another: CA 18 Dec 2001
An employee must answer questions which were raised by a Trading Standards Officer making enquiries. Citations: Times 28-Dec-1994 Statutes: Consumer Protection Act 1987 27 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Consumer Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89356
The claimant had purchased a new bicycle from the defendants who also maintained it. Several months later, the steerer tube broke causing an accident and severe injury. The cycle had been finally assembled by the defendant after importation, but that element was already put together. Held: The claim failed. The expert evidence had been difficult, … Continue reading Love v Halfords Ltd: QBD 8 Apr 2014
The applicant company produced oral snuff. It had opened a factory in the United Kingdom after the Government, on advice, had negotiated an agreement with it to restrict the marketing of the product. The committee, basing itself not on new evidence but on a changed evaluation of the existing evidence, subsequently advised the Secretary of … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte United States Tobacco International Inc: CA 1991
