Shaw v Medtronic Corevalve LLC & Ors

Shaw v Medtronic Corevalve LLC & Ors

The claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants are struck out or service set aside because the particulars disclose no reasonable grounds and there is no real prospect of success. The claims for exemplary, aggravated, and restitutionary damages, and for unjust enrichment, have no real prospect of success as a matter of law. The First Defendant's application is granted on the basis that the Claimant's claims are barred by satisfaction of judgment in the prior action and the pleaded heads of loss are not legally sustainable.

Parties
Claimant: Gabriele Shaw (as personal representative of the estate of William Ewan, deceased); First Defendant: Medtronic Corevalve LLC; Second Defendant: Jean Claude Laborde; Third Defendant: Medtronic Inc; Fourth Defendant: Medtronic Limited; Fifth Defendant: Medtronic PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Service, Strike Out, And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Applications granted; claims struck out or service set aside as specified.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Consumer Protection, Unjust Enrichment, Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Product Liability Civil Procedure Negligence Consumer Protection Unjust Enrichment Limitation of Actions Summary Judgment +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriele Shaw (as personal representative of the estate of William Ewan, deceased)

Claimant

Medtronic Corevalve LLC

First Defendant

Jean Claude Laborde

Second Defendant

Medtronic Inc

Third Defendant

Medtronic Limited

Fourth Defendant

Medtronic PLC

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Service, Strike Out, And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against the First, Third, and Fourth Defendants should be struck out or service set aside
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant can pursue claims for exemplary, aggravated, or restitutionary damages after satisfaction of judgment in a prior action
  3. 3 Whether a free-standing claim in unjust enrichment is available on the pleaded facts

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants are struck out or service set aside because the particulars disclose no reasonable grounds and there is no real prospect of success. The claims for exemplary, aggravated, and restitutionary damages, and for unjust enrichment, have no real prospect of success as a matter of law. The First Defendant's application is granted on the basis that the Claimant's claims are barred by satisfaction of judgment in the prior action and the pleaded heads of loss are not legally sustainable.

Court Disposition

Applications granted; claims struck out or service set aside as specified.

Orders

  • Set aside Master McCloud’s order and service of the Claim Form on the First and Third Defendants out of the jurisdiction.
  • Strike out the Particulars of Claim insofar as it relates to the Fourth Defendant.