Product liability

The statutory regimes

The key UK legislation for product safety and liability is found in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) which implemented Council Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products (the EU Product Liability Directive). Civil liability for defective products is provided for under CPA 1987, Part I. Criminal liability for unsafe or dangerous products is provided for under CPA 1987, Part II which provides that the Secretary of State may make such safety regulations as appropriate to ensure that goods are safe. Furthermore, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (GPSR 2005), SI 2005/1803 set out a parallel requirement that consumer products should not be dangerous. The GPSR (or aspects thereof) apply to the extent that the products are not covered by requirements set out in specific safety regulations.

Liability for defective products

Part I of the CPA 1987 imposes strict civil liability for defective products. A producer (or other person in the supply chain) will be liable to pay damages for death, personal injury and damage to personal property (with a value of £275 or more). Products are defined to include goods, electricity,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Commercial News

The English court’s jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions in relation to proceedings against third parties to an arbitration agreement (Renaissance Securities Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises)

Arbitration analysis: This decision arises from Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Ltd’s (Renaissance) application to vary an anti-suit injunction (ASI) previously granted by the English court in November 2023. The ASI had been granted by the English court to prevent the six defendants in the underlying dispute (the defendants) from proceeding against Renaissance in the Russian courts or any other court or tribunal, in breach of parties’ agreement to arbitrate under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). Following the ASI in November 2023, the second and sixth defendants (the Minority Defendants) commenced claims in Russia for damages against certain companies affiliated with Renaissance (the RREs), who were not parties to the arbitration agreement between Renaissance and the defendants. In response, Renaissance filed an application at the English court in which the main issue for determination was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant an ASI preventing the defendants from continuing and/or commencing claims against the RREs before the Russian courts. The English court, applying the English rules of construction and interpretation of contracts, held that the arbitration agreements between Renaissance and the defendants were never intended to apply to claims by or against third parties. The court also held that the Minority Defendants’ claims against the RREs were not vexatious or better suited to an alternative jurisdiction, as to require an order of the English court prohibiting the Minority Defendants from continuing the Russian proceedings against the RREs. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and Adeleresimi Philips-Adeleye, senior associate at ALN Nigeria|Aluko & Oyebode, Nigeria.

View Commercial by content type :

Popular documents