header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Explanted implants—product liability’s missing evidence

226376
In this week's NLJ, Sarah Moore and Harry Wilkinson of Leigh Day spotlight the untapped evidentiary power of explanted medical devices in product liability claims

Despite their potential to reveal why devices fail and support litigation, 95% of explants—like prosthetic hips or breast implants—are discarded post-surgery. The NHS Implant Analysis Service, launched in 2022, remains underused due to confusion over ownership, consent, and clinician responsibilities.

Patients legally own their implants, yet many are unaware, and hospitals often return devices to manufacturers without consent—potentially handing key evidence to the defence.

Moore and Wilkinson argue that explants are the ‘black box’ of medical litigation, offering insights into design flaws and patient harm. They call for greater awareness among patients, clinicians, and lawyers to preserve these devices. With rising revision surgeries and NHS costs, unlocking the value of explants could transform patient safety, product design, and legal accountability.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll