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 both on the box and in the leaflet, which were clear, legible, and sufficient to meet statutory and common law standards. The claimant's injury resulted from her loss of the leaflet and misrecollection of its contents, not from any defect or inadequacy in the warnings. The product was not defective, and the defendant was not negligent. Judgment for the defendant on the submission of no case to answer.

Citation
[1999] EWHC 273
Parties
Claimant: Alison Marianne Worsley; Defendant: Tambrands Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Product 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, Strict Liability, Adequacy of Warnings, Costs Orders, Legal Expenses Insurance
Tort Law Product Liability Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act 1987 Negligence Strict Liability Adequacy of Warnings Costs Orders +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 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 / Product 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 inadequate warning

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant provided adequate warnings both on the box and in the leaflet, which were clear, legible, and sufficient to meet statutory and common law standards. The claimant's injury resulted from her loss of the leaflet and misrecollection of its contents, not from any defect or inadequacy in the warnings. The product was not defective, and the defendant was not negligent. 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 to follow the event, with further directions regarding potential disclosure and joinder of the claimant's legal expenses insurer (Eastgate Assistance Limited) for costs purposes, subject to further application.