Webster & Ors v Mark Liddington & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 560 (07 May 2014)

Clinicians who hand over brochures describing a treatment without disclaimer adopt the contents as their own representations; statements that the injectate contained only the patient's own cells were materially false due to the presence of FCS, which could affect patient decisions and health.

Citation: [2014] EWCA Civ 560
Parties: Claimants/respondents: Kathleen Patricia Webster and Others; Defendants/appellants: Mark Liddington and Others
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 07 May 2014
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issues Judgment in Manchester County Court
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Misrepresentation, Professional Responsibility, Product Liability, Disclosure Obligations

Contract Law Tort Law Consumer Protection Misrepresentation Professional Responsibility Product Liability Disclosure Obligations

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Kathleen Patricia Webster and Others

Claimants/respondents

Mark Liddington and Others

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issues Judgment in Manchester County Court

Legal Issues

1 Are clinicians responsible for statements in manufacturers' brochures given to patients without disclaimer?
2 Do statements in brochures constitute actionable misrepresentations if they fail to disclose the presence of bovine material?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Clinicians are responsible for brochure contents handed to patients without disclaimer.
Statements in brochures were material misrepresentations due to omission of FCS presence.