Kings Chambers QC and senior junior act in Webster v Liddington
Nicholas Braslavsky QC and Andrew Grantham from Kings Chambers were recently successful in the Court of Appeal in the landmark decision of Webster v Liddington  EWCA Civ 560, in which the court held that medical practitioners could be liable in damages for misrepresentation when the content of a manufacturer’s literature provided to prospective patients prior to them undergoing treatment was materially false in the absence of an express disclaimer.
The case involved a class action brought by more than 50 claimants who alleged that they had been induced to undergo a course of innovative non-surgical cosmetic treatment known as Isolagen. The treatment involved the removal of cells from the patient, cultivating them in bovine calf serum and then reinjecting them in to the patient’s face.
The manufacturer’s literature claimed that the process involved the reinjection of only the patient’s own cells. In fact, there would be small quantities of bovine material. At first, HHJ Platts held that the medical practitioners had adopted the content of the literature as their own representations and that the representations were materially incorrect.
On appeal, two issues arose: first, whether the medical practitioners had adopted the content of the literature as their own representations given the absence of any express warranty as to the truth of such statements; and second, whether those representations were materially false given the small quantities of bovine material that would be left in the material injected into the patients.
The Court of Appeal reconsidered the law both concerning the adoption of third-party statements and the test for falsity of representations in what is clearly a landmark decision: the implications are potentially extremely serious. Any person with access to superior information who hands over literature produced by a third party with the objective of inducing a person to contract with him may be liable for the content of that literature in the absence of an express disclaimer. The motto is clear: the importance of a suitably worded disclaimer cannot be overstated.
News from Kings Chambers
Briefings from Kings Chambers
In Thompson v Renwick Group plc, Mr Thompson was exposed to asbestos while working for his employer, a transport haulage company, during the mid-1970s.
The Supreme Court has reversed the Cheshire West decision by seven Justices to zero and the Surrey decision by four to three.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The effects of recent changes to civil litigation are only just beginning to be felt, but barristers in the regions have several reasons to be cheerful