UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Simon Antrobus KC, Mike Atkins, Elizabeth Boon, Richard Sage, David Myhill and Alex Antelme KC, Crown Office Chambers
claim and the level of complexity or importance. Product liability actions involving defective con - sumer goods that have resulted in personal injury or property damage are frequently brought in the County Court, or in High Court district registries. Claims of substantial value, or group actions, are likely to be brought in the High Court in London. 2.11 Appeal Mechanisms for Product Liability Claims There are no specific rules on appeals in relation to product liability claims in civil actions. It is likely, however, that a court’s finding on whether a product is defective will be fact-specific, and so obtaining permission to appeal will be chal - lenging. 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims The defences that are available in product liabil - ity claims depend on the cause of action. Common Law Actions For claims in negligence and breach of contract, there are no specific defences that apply solely to product liability actions, and the “normal” common law defences apply. For a claim brought purely in tort, it is particularly important to be aware of the general exclusion - ary rule in relation to pure economic loss. Absent a special relationship, it is normally necessary for a claimant to show that the defective prod - uct has caused the claimant personal injury, or damage to some other product: a claim in tort does not normally exist just because an item is defective in quality. Contractual claims can be defeated by appro - priately worded exclusion clauses, although there are several statutory restrictions on exclu - sion clauses, particularly where the claimant is
a consumer. For example, a party cannot use a contract term to exclude their liability for negli - gence that causes death or personal injury. The rules on causation often provide a defence in product liability actions. A claimant who con - tinues to use a product after discovering a defect may not be able to recover damages for a sub - sequent accident. Consumer Protection Act For claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, a number of specific defences are set out in Section 4 of the Act. • A defendant is not liable if they can show that “the defect is attributable to compliance with any requirement imposed by or under any enactment or with any assimilated obligation” (Section 4 (1)(a)). This defence rarely suc - ceeds. Most statutory requirements impose minimum safety obligations on a manufactur - er, but do not dictate precisely how a product is to be designed and produced. • A defendant is not liable if they can show that they “did not at any time supply the product to another” (Section 4 (1)(b)). A defendant who is the owner of a defective product will not be liable under the Consumer Protection Act to someone injured by it if that defend - ant did not put the product into circulation by supplying it to some other person. • A defendant is not liable if they can show that the product was supplied for non-profit activi - ties. A person is not liable if “the only sup- ply of the product to another by the person proceeded against was otherwise than in the course of a business of that person’s” , and they only produced/branded or imported the product “otherwise than with a view to profit” (Section 4 (1)(c)).
286 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook