A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another

Last updated

A & Ors v National Blood Authority & Ors
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court High Court of Justice
Full case nameA and Others v National Blood Authority and Another
Decided26 March 2001
Citation(s)[2001] EWHC QB 446
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mr Justice Burton
Keywords
  • Safety level
  • Blood as a defective product [1]

  • Screening for HCV
  • Surrogate testing
  • Product liability
  • Non-standard product
  • Legitimate expectation
  • Comparative law [2]

A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another, also known as the Hepatitis C Litigation, [3] was a landmark product liability case of 2001 primarily concerning blood transfusions [1] but also blood products or transplanted organs, [4] all of which were infected with hepatitis C, where liability was established under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) even in the absence of the ability to test to ascertain which blood transfusions were defective. [5] The claimants were 114 individuals, six of whom were considered lead plaintiffs and given close consideration by the judge, Mr Justice Burton. Several of the claimants were minors who had become infected with Hepatitis C in the course of their treatment for leukaemia. [6] The defendants were the National Blood Authority (NBA) and in respect of Wales, the Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff. [7] The court found that the UK government should have implemented measures to screen donated blood for HCV by March 1990, rather than September 1991, [8] and that surrogate testing should have been introduced within the United Kingdom no later than 1 March 1988. [9]

Contents

Blood as a product

This case demonstrated that blood for transfusion and organs for transplantation could be considered natural substances under Section 45 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and as such, blood infected with hepatitis C would count as a defective product. [10] Burton J accepted that the hepatitis C–infected blood bags were non–standard products that would be at variance with the producer's intended use. It was not accepted, however, that all blood products were likely to be considered similarly defective. The Defendants did not agree that blood was a non–standard product and claimed that all blood, even though it was processed to a certain degree, carried an inherent risk—by virtue of being derived from a ″natural raw material″.

Burton J was satisfied that the problem of infected blood was not known to the consumer, nor did the consumer expect the bag of blood they were being given to be defective. After taking into account all circumstances as per the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC, the blood which had been infected with hepatitis C on and after 1 March 1988 failed to provide the expected level of safety and as such, was deemed to be a defective product within the meaning of Article 6.

Circumstances under Article 6

The court looked to the EU Product Liability Directive rather than the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The wording of Article 6 of the Directive states that when all circumstances are taken into account, and the product does not provide the safety that someone is entitled to expect, that product is rendered defective. [11]

Conclusions on Article 6

I do not consider it to be arguable that the consumer had an actual expectation that blood being supplied to him was not 100% clean, nor do I conclude that he had knowledge that it was, or was likely to be, infected with Hepatitis C.

— Mr Justice Burton [5]

The Defendant's argued that the wording under Article 6 as to how ″all circumstances″ should be taken into account in establishing the level of safety, meant that the court had to consider what steps could reasonably have been expected of the producer, the National Blood Authority, in trying to avoid viral transmission. [12] However, Burton J held that avoidability was not one of the circumstances that needed to be taken into account under Article 6.

The circumstances under Article 6 which should be taken into account include:

  1. the way the product is presented, for example, the price or any warnings displayed;
  2. the reasonable expected or foreseeable use of the product; [note 1]
  3. the time when the product was put into circulation, for example, whether the product was stale or out of date.

Under Article 6(2), if a newer version of a product was to come into circulation, it would not render the older version defective simply because there was a better version available.

NANBH and precautions

In the HIV Haemophilia Litigation , one of two legal issues cited in paragraph 20 of the Advice on Settlement document posed the question as to whether the defendants were negligent in exposing the plaintiffs to the risk of infection historically from hepatitis and whether this would extend to the Department of Health being held liable should the plaintiffs be found to be infected with an unforeseen virus, which in this case, was HIV. [15]

The question came about from material which had been produced by the plaintiff's legal advisors during the proceedings and more specifically from the defendant's discovery which Mr Justice Ognall had permitted the use of in the pending Hepatitis Litigation (A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another), where non-A non-B hepatitis (NANBH) was to become the focus over which precautions should have been taken historically, rather than the "proxy" as it had been in the HIV Haemophilia Litigation. [16]

Significance

The late Lord Morris of Manchester, then president of the UK Haemophilia Society, [17] said that the case represented a ″landmark judgement″ that would be of considerable interest to several thousand others who had been infected with hepatitis C as a result of NHS–supplied blood products. [4] The ruling, which found in favour of the claimants, was significant in that it was the first of its kind where there was a finding of liability in medical circumstances under consumer law, without the need for a finding of fault, in particular, without needing to prove fault on the part of the National Blood Authority who had supplied the defective product. It was also the first group action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. [18] The case was able to proceed by drawing legal comparisons between differing legal systems, particularly involving European law. [2] [19]

Government response

In a House of Lords debate on 23 March 2001, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in his role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health at the Department of Health, said that careful consideration would have to be given to the implications of the judgment which he described as the first of its kind in relation to the NHS under the Consumer Protection Act. [20] In the same debate, Lord Clement-Jones made the claim that officials of the Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State at the Department of Health had been discretely warning journalists as to the possible implications of the judgment and that it had been reported in The Independent that the NHS could see claims in the region of hundreds of millions if similarly injured consumers were to follow the precedent of this case. [21]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ An unexpected use of a non–dangerous product would not necessarily render the product defective. [13] For products where the expected use is considered dangerous, a different 'dangerousness' can still be claimed. [14]

Related Research Articles

Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Although the word "product" has broad connotations, product liability as an area of law is traditionally limited to products in the form of tangible personal property.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada</span> Royal commission of inquiry into the tainted blood scandal in Canada

The tainted blood disaster, or the tainted blood scandal, was a Canadian public health crisis in the 1980s in which thousands of people were exposed to HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products. It became apparent that inadequately-screened blood, often coming from high-risk populations, was entering the system through blood transfusions. It is now considered to be the largest single (preventable) public health disaster in the history of Canada.

<i>Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal</i> 2005 American film

Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal is a feature-length documentary by Arkansas filmmaker and investigative journalist Kelly Duda. Through interviews and presentation of documents and footage, Duda alleges that in the 1970s and 1980s, the Arkansas prison system profited from selling blood plasma from inmates infected with viral hepatitis and HIV. The documentary contends that thousands of victims who received transfusions of blood products derived from these plasma products, Factor VIII, died as a result.

Contaminated hemophilia blood products were a serious public health problem in the late 1970s up to 1985.

The Lindsay Tribunal was set up in Ireland in 1999 to investigate the infection of haemophiliacs with HIV and Hepatitis C from contaminated blood products supplied by the Blood Transfusion Service Board.

In April 1991, the doctor and journalist Anne-Marie Casteret published an article in the French weekly magazine the L'Événement du jeudi showing that the Centre National de Transfusion Sanguine knowingly distributed blood products contaminated with HIV to haemophiliacs in 1984 and 1985, leading to an outbreak of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in numerous countries. It is estimated that 6,000 to 10,000 haemophiliacs were infected in the United States alone. In France, 4,700 people were infected, and over 300 died. Other impacted countries include Canada, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.

Irish law on product liability was for most of its history based solely on negligence. With the Liability for Defective Products Act, 1991 it has now also the benefit of a statutory, strict liability regime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Protection Act 1987</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made important changes to the consumer law of the United Kingdom. Part 1 implemented European Community (EC) Directive 85/374/EEC, the product liability directive, by introducing a regime of strict liability for damage arising from defective products. Part 2 created government powers to regulate the safety of consumer products through Statutory Instruments. Part 3 defined a criminal offence of giving a misleading price indication.

The Liability for Defective Products Act 1991 is an Act of the Oireachtas that augmented Irish law on product liability formerly based solely on negligence. It introduced a strict liability regime for defective products, implementing Council of the European Union Directive 85/374/EEC.

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California involving an injury caused by an exploding bottle of Coca-Cola. It was an important case in the development of the common law of product liability in the United States, not so much for the actual majority opinion, but for the concurring opinion of California Supreme Court justice Roger Traynor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contaminated blood scandal in the United Kingdom</span> The historical contamination of blood products in the UK with HIV and hepatitis C virus

In the 1970s and 1980s, a large number of people – most of whom had haemophilia – were infected with hepatitis C and HIV, the virus that leads to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), as a result of receiving contaminated clotting factor products. In the United Kingdom, these were supplied by the National Health Service (NHS) and many of the products were imported from the US.

The Penrose Inquiry was the public inquiry into hepatitis C and HIV infections from NHS Scotland treatment with blood and blood products such as factor VIII, often used by people with haemophilia. The event is often called the Tainted Blood Scandal or Contaminated Blood Scandal.

<i>R (March) v Secretary of State for Health</i> UK judicial review quashing a decision on the grounds of material error of fact

R (March) v Secretary of State for Health was a 2010 judicial review which challenged the UK Department of Health's decision not to implement Recommendation 6(h) of the Archer Independent Inquiry. The case was important in developing the doctrine of error of fact in public law which previously had not readily been the subject of judicial intervention.

M.C. and Others v Italy is a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 3 September 2013 in which Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) was engaged due to the applicants not being afforded annual uprating which the court deemed damage to their property of a disproportionate character in the form of an exorbitant charge. The Strasbourg ruling sets an important precedent for higher monthly compensation payments to be paid to the 60,000 or so victims of contaminated blood transfusions in Italy. The effect of this ruling increased payments to the applicants by 40%.

The Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood, often abbreviated to ACVSB, was a committee formed in March 1989 in the United Kingdom to devise policy and advise ministers and the Department of Health on the safety of blood with respect to viral infections. The scope of the ACVSB concerned areas of significant policy for the whole of the United Kingdom and operated under the terms of reference: "To advise the Health Departments of the UK on measures to ensure the virological safety of blood, whilst maintaining adequate supplies of appropriate quality for both immediate use and for plasma processing." Of particular emphasis to the remit was the testing of blood donors using surrogate markers for Non-A Non-B hepatitis (NANBH) and later on, HCV-screening of blood donors.

<i>HIV Haemophilia Litigation</i> Legal action by haemophiliacs infected with HIV through blood products

The HIV Haemophilia Litigation [1990] 41 BMLR 171, [1990] 140 NLJR 1349 (CA), [1989] E N. 2111, also known as AMcG002, and HHL, was a legal claim by 962 plaintiffs, mainly haemophiliacs, who were infected with HIV as a result of having been treated with blood products in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first central defendants were the then Department of Health, with other defendants being the Licensing Authority of the time, (MCA), the CSM, the CBLA, and the regional health authorities of England and Wales. In total, there were 220 defendants in the action.

<i>CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care</i> Judicial review permission appeal challenging non-inclusion of hepatitis B

CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86 was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the infected blood support scheme administered by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) for non-inclusion of those infected with chronic Hepatitis B virus. The appeal was based on the grounds that the exclusion of those infected with HBV from the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) was unreasonable and discriminatory, contrary to article 14 when read in conjunction with article 8 and article 1 protocol 1 (A1P1) of the ECHR. The appellant also claimed that there was different treatment and that the failure to include those infected with HBV was unreasonable, and that the original application for review should not have been deemed out of time.

In 1994, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) informed the Minister for Health that a blood product they had distributed in 1977 for the treatment of pregnant mothers had been contaminated with the hepatitis C virus. Following a report by an expert group, it was discovered that the BTSB had produced and distributed a second infected batch in 1991. The Government established a Tribunal of Inquiry to establish the facts of the case and also agreed to establish a tribunal for the compensation of victims but seemed to frustrate and delay the applications of these, in some cases terminally, ill women.

The Irish Haemophilia Society (IHS) is an organization that represents the interests of people with haemophilia, von Willebrand disease and other inherited bleeding disorders.

References

  1. 1 2 Kinsella, Jack; Subhasree, D. (20 January 2020). "Judgement for the case A v National Blood Authority". oxbridgenotes.co.uk. Oxbridge Notes. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  2. 1 2 Brooke, Michael; Forrester, Ian (2015). "The Use of Comparative Law in A & Others v National Blood Authority". Courts and Comparative Law. OUP. pp. 657–679. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735335.003.0036. ISBN   978-0-19-873533-5 . Retrieved 31 January 2022.
  3. ↑ Goldberg, Richard (1 January 2002). "Paying for Bad Blood: Strict Product Liability after the Hepatitis C Litigation". Medical Law Review . 10 (2): 165–200. doi:10.1093/medlaw/10.2.165 – via academic.oup.com.
  4. 1 2 "Hepatitis patients win compensation". BBC News. Wales. 26 March 2001. Retrieved 28 May 2020. They were infected with Hepatitis C, which affects the liver, after receiving blood transfusions, blood products or transplanted organs.
  5. 1 2 A & Ors v National Blood Authority & Ors [2001] EWHC 446(QB) , [2001] EWHC QB 446, (2001) 65 BMLR 1, 65 BMLR 1, [2001] Lloyd's Rep Med 187, [2001] 3 All ER 289(2001), High Court (England and Wales)
  6. ↑ Gordon, Cathy; Colley, Jan (26 March 2001). "Hepatitis sufferers win fight for damages". The Independent. Archived from the original on 14 June 2020. Retrieved 14 June 2020.
  7. ↑ "NHS pays damages to hepatitis victims". The Scientist. 26 March 2001. Retrieved 29 May 2020. The judge will consider whether to grant the defendants, the National Blood Authority in England and the Velindre NHS Trust in Wales, leave to appeal on 10 April.
  8. ↑ Dyer, Clare (31 March 2001). "Nhs Told To Pay £10M To Patients Infected With Hepatitis C". British Medical Journal. 322 (7289): 751. JSTOR   25466591 – via JSTOR.
  9. ↑ A & Ors v National Blood Authority & Ors, 446 , 10(EWCH2001)("I am however satisfied that it ought to have been at some stage after the introduction of the surrogate tests in the United States and the subsequent consideration given to them in the United Kingdom, and before, or at any rate by, 1 March 1988.").
  10. ↑ McBride, Nicholas J.; Bagshaw, Roderick (2008). Tort Law (Third ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education, Limited. p. 776. ISBN   9781405859493. Indeed, it was conceded in the important case of A v National Blood Authority that contaminated blood did count as a ′product′ under the Act.
  11. ↑ Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products
  12. ↑ Paroha, Karishma Jasani; Sayers, Shane (18 February 2010). "Case law lessons on defective products and the development risks defence". International Law Office. Archived from the original on 6 June 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2020.
  13. ↑ A & Ors v National Blood Authority & Ors, 446, 4c(EWCH2001)("If it is not expected to be dangerous in respect of its expected use, but the use to which it is put is unexpected, then it may not be defective.").
  14. ↑ Ramsay, Iain (2012). Consumer Law and Policy: Text and Materials on Regulating Consumer Markets. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 613. ISBN   9781782250241. ...but complaint could still be made of a different dangerousness, such as if it exploded on the trigger being pulled.
  15. ↑ Brennan QC, Daniel; Jackson QC, Rupert; Brooke, Michael; Evans, Hugh (10 December 1990). HIV Haemophilia Litigation - Advice on Settlement. London: 2 Crown Office Row, Temple and 38 Essex Street, Temple. p. 13. 20. The Legal issues. There are two legal issues which are difficult and disputed. First, if the defendants were negligent in exposing the plaintiffs to a risk of infection from hepatitis, are they liable if the plaintiffs are infected by an unforeseen virus HIV? ...
  16. ↑ Fairgrieve, Duncan; Brooke, Michael (2005). In Product Liability in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN   9781139448031. Near the end of the HHL, Mr Justice Ognall allowed the plaintiffs' lawyers to act in the forthcoming Hepatitis Litigation, using the knowledge acquired when acting in the HHL, particularly resulting from the disclosure provided by the various defendants. In the Hepatitis Litigation NANBH, no longer the proxy, was the target itself.
  17. ↑ "Lord Morris (President from 1999–2012)". The Haemophilia Society: Our People—Who We Are. Retrieved 31 May 2020. The late Lord Morris of Manchester was president of the Haemophilia Society until he passed away, aged 84, in August 2012.
  18. ↑ Dyer, Clare (27 March 2001). "Infected blood victims′ victory". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2 June 2020. The case... ...was the first group action to reach court under a little–used law, the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
  19. ↑ "Obituary: HH Michael Brooke QC (1942-2014)". Medico-Legal Journal. 82 (4): 130–131. 2014. doi:10.1177/0025817214560293. PMID   25471212. S2CID   206425736 . Retrieved 31 January 2022. By then a QC (he took silk in 1994) the case was advanced based on European and comparative law...
  20. ↑ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Department of Health (23 March 2001). "National Blood Authority". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 624. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Lords. col. 411–412.
  21. ↑ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Department of Health (23 March 2001). "National Blood Authority". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 624. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Lords. col. 410–411. However, his officials seem to be warning journalists about the implications. The Independent stated: "Department of Health officials privately warned that the implications of the 173-page judgment were that the NHS could face claims for hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation if the same reasoning was applied in other cases where patients suffered unpreventable injury".

Witness Statement of Harold Hastings Gunson in A and Others (March 2000)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.