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 requirement allowing the exercise of a discretion was that the substitution was necessary for the determination of the original action. When exercising the discretion the Court had to have regard to the purpose of the Council Directive underlying the 1967 Act. In this case that meant that only a producer should be substituted, and such substitution should not be done lightly, and the applicable limitation period had to be borne in mind. In this case the substitution should be allowed.
Judges:
Teare J
Citations:
Times 20-Nov-2006, [2006] EWHC 2562 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Consumer Protection Act 1987, Limitation Act 1980 35
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
At QBD – OB v Aventis Pasteur SA HL 11-Jun-2008
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 . .
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. . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – 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.
Litigation Practice, Limitation
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245956