O'Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Msd Ltd. [2006] EWHC 2562 (QB) (20 October 2006)

O'Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Msd Ltd. [2006] EWHC 2562 (QB) (20 October 2006)

The court has jurisdiction to permit substitution under section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 because APMSD was named in mistake for APSA, and substitution is necessary for determination of the claim against the true manufacturer. The discretion to allow substitution should be exercised in favour of the claimant, as APSA is the producer, was likely aware of the claim within the limitation period, and no prejudice beyond loss of a limitation defence is shown.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2562
Parties
Claimant: Master Declan O'Byrne; Defendant: Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd; Proposed Defendant: Aventis Pasteur SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Substitute Party Under Limitation Act 1980 / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Substitution of Parties, Mistake in Party Identity, Consumer Protection Act 1987, Product Liability Directive
Civil Procedure Product Liability Limitation of Actions Substitution of Parties Mistake in Party Identity Consumer Protection Act 1987 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Master Declan O'Byrne

Claimant

Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd

Defendant

Aventis Pasteur SA

Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Substitute Party Under Limitation Act 1980 / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to substitute Aventis Pasteur SA for Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd after expiry of the 10-year limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the substitution is necessary for the determination of the original action under section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to permit substitution in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to permit substitution under section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 because APMSD was named in mistake for APSA, and substitution is necessary for determination of the claim against the true manufacturer. The discretion to allow substitution should be exercised in favour of the claimant, as APSA is the producer, was likely aware of the claim within the limitation period, and no prejudice beyond loss of a limitation defence is shown.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission granted for the claimant to substitute Aventis Pasteur SA for Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd as defendant in this action.