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 years. The claimant had then to choose another company (APSA) as defendant. On a second reference to the ECJ, the reply was that the domestic court was to consider, in accordance with domestic rules of proof, whether the manufacturer, APSA, was in fact controlling APMSD and determining when it put the Product into circulation.
Held: Though the original basis of the substitution was no longer available, the ECJ had provided a new basis upon which a substitution might be allowed: ‘The domestic court must look at the circumstances to see whether, despite appearances, in fact, it was the manufacturing parent company which had determined that the product should be put into circulation.’ On this basis, and on the facts of the case, the company’s appeal succeeded, and the claimant was unable to substitute it as defendant.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Saville, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale
[2010] WLR (D) 137, [2010] UKSC 23
WLRD, Times, SC Summ, SC, Bailii, Bailii Summary
Consumer Protection Act 1987 2, Limitation Act 1980 11(3), Council Directive 85/374/EEC
England and Wales
Citing:
At ECJ (1) – 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. . .
See Also – 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 . .
At CA (1) – 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 CA (2) – 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 – 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 . .
At ECJ (2) – 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 . .
Cited – Geffroy v Casino France SNC ECJ 12-Sep-2000
Europa Free movement of goods – National legislation on the marketing of a product – Description and labelling – National legislation requiring use of the official language of the Member State – Directive . .
Cited – Severi, in his own name and representing Cavazzuti e figli SpA, now known as Grandi Salumifici Italiani SpA v Regione Emilia-Romagna ECJ 7-May-2009
ECJ Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 Directive 2000/13/EC – Name of a food product evocative of a place not registered as a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication – Uninterrupted use in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Consumer, European
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.416042
