Webster & Ors v Mark Liddington & Ors

Webster & Ors v Mark Liddington & Ors

Clinicians who hand over brochures to patients without disclaimer adopt the contents as their own representations. Statements that the injectate contained only the patient’s own cells were materially false because small traces of bovine material could be present, which could affect patient decision-making and pose a risk of allergic reaction. The clinicians are therefore responsible for the misrepresentations.

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
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Professional Responsibility, Product Liability
Contract Law Tort Law Consumer Protection Misrepresentation Professional Responsibility Product Liability

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Patricia Webster and Others

Claimants/respondents

Mark Liddington and Others

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issues Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are clinicians responsible for statements in manufacturers’ brochures given to patients without disclaimer?
  2. 2 Do certain statements in those brochures constitute misrepresentations if they fail to disclose the presence of small traces of bovine material?

Ratio Decidendi

Clinicians who hand over brochures to patients without disclaimer adopt the contents as their own representations. Statements that the injectate contained only the patient’s own cells were materially false because small traces of bovine material could be present, which could affect patient decision-making and pose a risk of allergic reaction. The clinicians are therefore responsible for the misrepresentations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.