Piper v JRI (Manufacturing) Ltd

Piper v JRI (Manufacturing) Ltd

The defendant established, on the evidence, that the prosthesis was not defective at the time of supply. The inspection system was capable of detecting any defect of the relevant size, and the personnel were found to be highly experienced and conscientious. There was no evidence that a defect smaller than 35 microns, undetectable by the system, caused the failure. The statutory defence under s.4 was therefore made out, and the appeal failed.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Terence Piper; Respondent/defendant: JRI (Manufacturing) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Derby County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defective Products, Strict Liability, Manufacturing Defects, Burden of Proof, Consumer Protection Act 1987
Product Liability Consumer Protection Tort Defective Products Strict Liability Manufacturing Defects Burden of Proof Consumer Protection Act 1987

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Piper

Appellant/claimant

JRI (Manufacturing) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Derby County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosthesis supplied by the defendant was defective at the time of supply under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the defendant established the statutory defence that the defect did not exist at the relevant time
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's alternative case on design/manufacture was properly before the court

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant established, on the evidence, that the prosthesis was not defective at the time of supply. The inspection system was capable of detecting any defect of the relevant size, and the personnel were found to be highly experienced and conscientious. There was no evidence that a defect smaller than 35 microns, undetectable by the system, caused the failure. The statutory defence under s.4 was therefore made out, and the appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment for the defendant stands
  • No order on cross-appeal as main appeal failed