Worsley v Tambrands Ltd. [1999] EWHC 273 (QB) (03 December 1999)

Worsley v Tambrands Ltd. [1999] EWHC 273 (QB) (03 December 1999)

The defendant provided adequate warnings on both the box and the leaflet, meeting statutory and common law standards. The product was not defective, and the claimant’s injury was not caused by any breach of duty or defect. The claimant’s loss of the leaflet and misunderstanding of the warnings did not render the product defective. Judgment for the defendant on the submission of no case to answer.

Citation
[1999] EWHC 273 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Alison Marianne Worsley; Defendant: Tambrands Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/products Liability / Judgment on Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant on submission of no case to answer.
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act 1987, Negligence, Duty to Warn, Costs Orders, Legal Expenses Insurance
Tort Law Product Liability Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act 1987 Negligence Duty to Warn Costs Orders Legal Expenses Insurance

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

Parties

Alison Marianne Worsley

Claimant

Tambrands Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/products Liability / Judgment on Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's product (Tampax Regular tampon) was defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate warnings
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's injury (TSS) was caused by a defect or breach of duty

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant provided adequate warnings on both the box and the leaflet, meeting statutory and common law standards. The product was not defective, and the claimant’s injury was not caused by any breach of duty or defect. The claimant’s loss of the leaflet and misunderstanding of the warnings did not render the product defective. Judgment for the defendant on the submission of no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant on submission of no case to answer.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Costs order in favour of the defendant, with the quantum and potential non-party insurer liability to be determined at a later hearing.