UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lisa Lunt and Sarah Samuel, Fletchers Solicitors
Objections are typically framed in terms of “stale claims”: fading memories, missing documents, corpo - rate reorganisations and increased insurance premi - ums. These are legitimate concerns, but they are not unique to product liability, and they can be managed. Modern record-keeping, digital batch/serial track - ing, regulatory retention obligations, and litigation tools (including proportionate disclosure and expert evidence) already support the adjudication of older claims. Moreover, the UK already accommodates long-latency personal injury litigation in other con - texts, suggesting that an additional 15 years in this narrow category is not inherently unworkable. Manufacturers may contend that extending the ten- year longstop limitation period to 25 years would give rise to unfairness and legal uncertainty. However, such arguments carry limited persuasive weight. The United Kingdom represents only a small jurisdiction within the broader European market, where manufacturers will now have to operate under extended exposure periods of up to 25 years. Having to adapt their risk management, record-keeping and insurance arrange - ments to comply with these longer timeframes, manu - facturers can scarcely claim genuine prejudice arising from the alignment of the UK regime with the wider European position. If the UK adopts a 25-year longstop, careful drafting will matter. Policymakers will need to define the trig - ger for the extended period (for example, by focusing on latent personal injury where the claimant could not reasonably have brought the claim within ten years), and to address transitional issues for products already in circulation. But these are design questions, not rea - sons to retain a rule that systematically excludes a class of claimants. Practical implications now (and what practitioners can do) • Identify the “Put Into Circulation” Date Early: In potential CPA claims, establishing the relevant time (and evidencing it) should be treated as a front- loaded task. For devices and pharmaceuticals, this may require tracing through batch documentation, distributor records, hospital procurement records and regulatory material.
• Plead and Investigate Alternatives but Be Realistic About Them: Negligence and contract may offer routes around a CPA time bar in some cases, but they introduce additional hurdles (fault, duty, con - tractual privity, and often complex causation). Early case strategy should assess whether these routes are genuinely viable. • Preserve Product and Data Evidence: Where pos - sible, it is important to retain explanted devices, packaging, instructions for use, and digital logs/ telemetry. Early expert input can be decisive on defect and causation, especially where the primary dispute will concern the mechanism of failure. • Consider Cross-Border Angles: Where there is an EU placing on the market, an EU-domiciled defendant, or parallel damage, limitation and forum questions may arise. • Engage with Reform Opportunities: The Law Commission review provides a clear channel for evidence-based input. Practitioners represent - ing injured claimants can contribute anonymised case studies showing how and when limitation bites; defendant-side practitioners can contribute data on record retention, insurance pricing and the operational implications of different longstop models. Conclusion: widening access to justice requires a longer longstop The ten-year longstop in the Limitation Act 1980, s 11A(3), is intended to deliver certainty, but in practice it frequently delivers something else: the extinguish - ment of claims before injured people could reason - ably have known that a defective product caused their harm. In a landscape of increasingly complex products, longer supply chains and well-recognised patterns of latent injury, that outcome looks harder to justify. A move to a 25-year longstop, mirroring the New PLD’s approach for latent personal injury, would be a measured reform, not a radical one. It would preserve a finite backstop while ensuring that late-manifesting injuries are not systematically excluded from the strict liability regime. If the UK is serious about modernising product liability law and widening access to justice, reforming the longstop should be near the top of the agenda.
310 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook