This case, typical of many we handle, demonstrates that suppliers can be held liable for faulty goods .

Mr S v Hamble Distribution Limited

We received instructions to act for Mr S when he suffered a severe laceration to his hand after a grinding disc he was using broke.

The case was taken by one of our Partners, Ashley Webb, who recognised that Mr S. had a “cause of action” (a case) under the Consumer Protection Act 1987

The grinding disc had been purchased by Mr S before the accident and it was being used for the first time following its purchase by Mr S from a local supermarket. The discs were manufactured in China, but were imported and distributed by a company registered in England and Wales.

Ashley’s advice was that under the Consumer Protection Act it was not neccesary for Mr S to prove fault. He only had to prove that the item was defective as defined in the Act.

Ashley argued that Mr S had used the disc appropriately and because of this he was entitled to expect that the item would not break when being used and cause injury. It was further successfully argued that the company responsible for importing these items held itself out to be the producer of the product by putting its name on the product or using a trade mark and other distinguishing mark in relation to that product.

Ashley advised Mr S that he had a strong case which he felt we could win, and so when the defendants initially resisted the claim, proceedings were issued. Following further negotiations the Defendants then agreed to settle out of court, paying our clients a satisfactory sum by way of damages.

One of the reasons for Ashley’s confidence was that this was not the only course of action available to Mr S. It would also have been possible to argue that there was a breach of contract by the supplier because it supplied a disc which was not of satisfactory quality. In other words, the disc fractured when it was used for the first time which would suggest that it was not satisfactory or fit for purpose.