header-logo header-logo

Directive

15 January 2010
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Aventis Pasteur SA v OB; sub nom O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur SA C-358/08, [2009] All ER (D) 228 (Dec)

Article 11 of Council Directive (EEC) 85/374 precluded national legislation which allowed the substitution of one defendant for another during proceedings, from being applied in a way which permitted a “producer”, within the meaning of Art 3 of the Directive, to be sued, after the expiry of the period prescribed by that article, as defendant in proceedings brought within that period against another person.

However, first, Art 1 did not preclude a national court from holding that, in the proceedings instituted within the period prescribed by that article against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the “producer”, within the meaning of Art 3(1) of the Directive, that producer could be substituted for that subsidiary if that court found that the putting into circulation of the product in question was, in fact, determined by that producer.

Second, Art 3(3) of the Directive had to be interpreted as meaning that, where the person injured by an allegedly defective product was not reasonably able

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll