O'Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Msd Ltd.

O'Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Msd Ltd.

The court has jurisdiction to substitute APSA for APMSD because APMSD was named in mistake for APSA as the producer of the vaccine. Substitution is necessary for the determination of the original action, as the claim is against the producer. The discretion to permit substitution should be exercised, as APSA was likely aware of the claim within the limitation period, the mistake was genuine, and no prejudice arises save for loss of a limitation defence, which is not sufficient to refuse substitution.

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
Civil / Application to Substitute Defendant After Expiry of Limitation Period
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Substitution of Parties, Mistake in Party Identity, Consumer Protection
Civil Procedure Product Liability Limitation of Actions Substitution of Parties Mistake in Party Identity Consumer Protection

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

Parties

Master Declan O’Byrne

Claimant

Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd

Defendant

Aventis Pasteur SA

Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Substitute Defendant After Expiry of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to substitute APSA for APMSD because APMSD was named in mistake for APSA as the producer of the vaccine. Substitution is necessary for the determination of the original action, as the claim is against the producer. The discretion to permit substitution should be exercised, as APSA was likely aware of the claim within the limitation period, the mistake was genuine, and no prejudice arises save for loss of a limitation defence, which is not sufficient to refuse substitution.

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