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 to be substituted, it said the claim was out of time. The House was asked where proceedings are commenced aganst someone wrongly identified as the producer ‘is it consistent with article 11 for the court to be able to say that the proceedings shall count as having been instituted against the real producer and amended accordingly? ‘
Held: There must be a further reference to the ECJ. It was not completely clear whether the ECJ had decided that provided a national court had due and proper regard to the Directive, it was permissible for that national court to treat proceedings against one company as if they were proceedings against another.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond
[2008] UKHL 34
Bailii, HL
Council Directive 85/374/EEC 11, Consumer Protection Act 1987 35
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
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 . .
At ECJ – Declan O’Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, formerly Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA ECJ 9-Feb-2006
ECJ Directive 85/374/EEC – Liability for defective products – Definition of -putting into circulation- of the product – Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary. . .
At QBD – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2006
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 . .
Cited – Skov AEG v Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S ECJ 10-Jan-2006
ECJ Directive 85/374/EEC – Liability for defective products – Liability of the supplier of a defective product.
The class of persons liable against whom an injured person is entitled to bring an action under . .
Cited – Srl CILFIT v Ministero Della Sanita ECJ 6-Oct-1982
ECJ The obligation to refer to the Court of Justice questions concerning the interpretation of the EEC Treaty and of measures adopted by the community institutions which the third paragraph of article 177 of the . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
At CA – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa CA 9-Oct-2007
The claimant had made a mistake in naming the defendant company, but had intended the company which it now requested the court to substitute as defendant. The limitation period had expired.
Held: The substitution was necessary to decide the . .
Appeal from – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa CA 9-Oct-2007
Whether two applications for leave to appeal between the same parties should be heard together. . .
Cited by:
See Also – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa CA 9-Oct-2007
The claimant had made a mistake in naming the defendant company, but had intended the company which it now requested the court to substitute as defendant. The limitation period had expired.
Held: The substitution was necessary to decide the . .
See Also – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa CA 9-Oct-2007
Whether two applications for leave to appeal between the same parties should be heard together. . .
At HL – Aventis Pasteur v O’Byrne (Environment And Consumers) ECJ 2-Dec-2009
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 . .
At HL – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa SC 26-May-2010
The claimant wished to claim damages after suffering serious injury as a child having been vaccinated with a drug manufactured by a defendant (APMSD). The defendant had relied on a defence saying that the limitation period under the Directive was 10 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Limitation, Personal Injury
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.268809
