RICHARDS, (FIRST) ; AND (SECOND JOHN JARVIE AGAINST PHARMACIA LIMITED, c/o PFIZER LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSIH_31 (24 April 2018)

RICHARDS, (FIRST) ; AND (SECOND JOHN JARVIE AGAINST PHARMACIA LIMITED, c/o PFIZER LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSIH_31 (24 April 2018)

The pursuers' pleadings, though lengthy and detailed, sufficiently specify the alleged defect (absence of warning about cardiovascular risk), the duty breached, and causation to merit proof before answer. The defenders have fair notice of the case against them. Allegations of fraud, except one passage, are admitted to probation as relevant to knowledge and suppression of risk.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_31
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Ronald Richards; Pursuer/respondent: John Jarvie; Defender/reclaimer: Pharmacia Limited, c/o Pfizer Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Proof Before Answer
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Defective Pharmaceutical Products, Duty to Warn, Consumer Protection Act 1987, Causation, Regulatory Compliance
Product Liability Personal Injury Medical Negligence Defective Pharmaceutical Products Duty to Warn Consumer Protection Act 1987 Causation Regulatory Compliance

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Richards

Pursuer/respondent

John Jarvie

Pursuer/respondent

Pharmacia Limited, c/o Pfizer Limited

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' pleadings are sufficiently specific and relevant to merit proof before answer on negligence and statutory product liability grounds
  2. 2 Whether lack of warning about cardiovascular risks constitutes a defect under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers have given fair notice of the alleged defect and risk

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings, though lengthy and detailed, sufficiently specify the alleged defect (absence of warning about cardiovascular risk), the duty breached, and causation to merit proof before answer. The defenders have fair notice of the case against them. Allegations of fraud, except one passage, are admitted to probation as relevant to knowledge and suppression of risk.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on pursuers' averments
  • Allegations of fraud admitted to probation except one passage excised