Hastings (Appellant) v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd and another (Respondents) (Scotland)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2021/0088

Parties

Appellant(s)

John Hastings

Respondent(s)

Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd

Stryker UK Ltd

Issue

Did the lower courts err in law by not holding that the hip replacement product used for the Appellant’s hip replacement was defective within the terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Facts

The Appellant underwent a metal-on-metal total hip replacement (“MoM THR”) in 2009. The prosthetic hip used was manufactured by the Respondents (each making separate parts). In 2012, the Appellant underwent revision of the left side of his hip implant.The Appellant claims that the replacement hip used was defective and seeks damages based on section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The issues in the present case were limited at first instance to the question of whether certain propensities and risks inherent in MoM THR prosthetic hips rendered the particular combination of components used in the Appellant’s operations defective within the meaning of section 3 of the 1987 Act.The Outer House refused the Appellant’s motion, determining that the particular product was not defective within the terms of the 1987 Act. The Inner House refused the Appellant’s reclaiming motion.

Date of issue

14 April 2021

Judgment appealed

Judgment details

Judgment date

29 June 2022

Neutral citation

[2022] UKSC 19

Judgment links

Judgment summary

29 June 2022

Appeal

Justices

Lord Reed

Lord Kitchin

Lord Stephens

Lady Rose

Lord Lloyd-Jones

Hearing dates

Start date

28 April 2022

End date

28 April 2022

Watch hearings

Back to top