header-logo header-logo

26 January 2012
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Finding the remedy for implants

Law commissioner advocates breach of contract as solution to implant scandal

Breach of contract could be the best remedy for the PIP breast implants controversy, according to law commissioner David Hertzell.

About 40,000 women in the UK have PIP (Poly Implant Prosthèse) implants, which were filled with industrial-grade silicone gel instead of the more expensive medical-grade variety. French doctors have recommended their removal, and discussions are taking place in the UK over who is responsible, what should be done and what type of legal claim might be appropriate. The manufacturers of PIP implants are no longer in business.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley has indicated that women whose implants were inserted on the NHS will be offered free consultations and removal if required, and he has said private healthcare providers have a moral duty to offer the same. However, several private clinics deny responsibility.

Writing in NLJ, Hertzell argues a breach of contract claim “could be easier to prove and potentially offer more generous remedies than other types of claim”.

“Breast augmentation surgery is classified as a works and material contract because the service (the surgeon’s skill and the operation) is so substantial that it is in effect the substance of the contract: the goods (the implants) are ancillary.”

Hertzell points out that the goods supplied must be of “satisfactory quality”, and that safety is an important element of “quality”. “If goods are of unsatisfactory quality, the consumer is entitled, within a reasonable time, to a repair or replacement, unless this would be disproportionate…Here, claimants would be seeking the cost of replacement implants and surgery. It is irrelevant that the implants have not ruptured.”

Any litigation will also need to take into account the psychological implications of implant removal, according to expert witness and psychologist Hugh Koch, of Hugh Koch Associates.

Koch says needing or having implant removal can cause psychological distress in a large group of women, and that professional treatment should be sought if this does not resolve itself within a short period of time.

Issue: 7498 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll