O'Byrne v Aventis Pasteur SA

O'Byrne v Aventis Pasteur SA

Section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 applies to the ten year cut-off period under the Directive, and substitution of the correct defendant is permissible where the original defendant was named in mistake for the true manufacturer, even if the mistake was discovered before expiry of the limitation period, provided the court exercises its discretion in favour of substitution.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Master Declan O’Byrne; Proposed Defendant/appellant: Aventis Pasteur SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Substitution of Defendant After Expiry of Limitation Period
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Substitution of Parties, Limitation Periods, Mistake in Party Name, Consumer Protection Act, European Product Liability Directive
Product Liability Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Substitution of Parties Limitation Periods Mistake in Party Name Consumer Protection Act European Product Liability Directive

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

Parties

Master Declan O’Byrne

Claimant/respondent

Aventis Pasteur SA

Proposed Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Substitution of Defendant After Expiry of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 applies where the ten year cut-off under the European Product Liability Directive has expired
  2. 2 Whether substitution of a defendant is permissible where the claimant discovered the mistake before expiry of the limitation period but did not apply for substitution until after expiry

Ratio Decidendi

Section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 applies to the ten year cut-off period under the Directive, and substitution of the correct defendant is permissible where the original defendant was named in mistake for the true manufacturer, even if the mistake was discovered before expiry of the limitation period, provided the court exercises its discretion in favour of substitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Substitution of Aventis Pasteur SA for Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd as defendant confirmed
  • No challenge to exercise of discretion by the judge; order stands