Hastings v Finsbury Orthopedics Ltd and Anor [2022] UKSC 19 – UKSCblog

On this put up, Sophie Malley, a trainee solicitor at CMS, feedback on the choice in Hastings v Finsbury Orthopedics Ltd and Anor [2022] UKSC 19the primary product legal responsibility case to achieve the UK Supreme Court docket.

On 29 June 2022, the Supreme Court docket unanimously dismissed the attraction in Hastings v Finsbury Orthopedics Ltd and Anor [2022] UKSC 19. The Supreme Court docket adhered to the findings of the decrease courts in Scotland (previewed right here) that the steel on steel prosthesis used for Mr Hastings’ whole hip substitute was not faulty beneath the Shopper Safety Act 1987 (the “CPA”), s 3. The choice, in favor of the producers, was handed down roughly two months after the case was heard by the Supreme Court docket.


Mr Hastings underwent a steel on steel whole hip substitute (the “MoM THR”) in March 2009 which was revised in October 2012. The prosthesis used comprised of suitable part components manufactured by every of the respondents (the “Mitch/Accolade product“). Mr Hastings then introduced a declare beneath the CPA, s 2 for private harm allegedly triggered because of the Mitch/Accolade product being faulty.

Choice of the decrease courts

At first occasion, the Outer Home of the Court docket of Session thought of whether or not the inherent propensity of MoM prostheses to shed steel particles as soon as implanted rendered the Mitch/Accolade product faulty (that being much less secure than individuals typically are entitled to anticipate) beneath the CPA, s 3. Lord Tire, the Lord Extraordinary, clarified that to ensure that the Mitch/Accolade product to fulfill the entitled expectation, “its degree of security wouldn’t be worse, when measured by acceptable standards, than current non-MoM merchandise that may in any other case have been used” On the subject of the statistical proof offered to the court docket, Lord Tire discovered that Mr Hastings did not show that the product was faulty.

Mr Hastings appealed to the Interior Home of the Court docket of Session. The Interior Home famous that so as to reverse a willpower of truth, it should be happy that the Lord Extraordinary erred in regulation, made a discovering not based mostly on the proof or clearly misunderstood, or disregarded, related proof. As none of those necessities have been met, the Interior Home upheld the primary occasion resolution.

Supreme Court docket resolution

Mr Hastings proceeded to attraction to the Supreme Court docket. The authorized points regarding the software of the CPA have been largely agreed between the events. The attraction was primarily an try and attraction towards the Lord Extraordinary’s findings of truth. Mr Hastings was beforehand discovered to have did not show his case on a statistical foundation. Due to this fact, the query for the Supreme Court docket was whether or not there was extra proof Mr Hastings might use to show that the Mitch/Accolade product didn’t meet the entitled expectation when it comes to the CPA.

The proof relied on by Mr Hastings comprised the response of: (1) the orthopedic group; (2) the nationwide regulator; and (3) the producers withdrawing the Mitch/Accolade product from the market. The Supreme Court docket addressed every class of proof in flip.

Issues of the orthopedic group

In July 2008, orthopedic surgeons started to specific critical skilled issues about excessive revision charges (the proportion probability that revision surgical procedure shall be required to exchange a prosthesis) and potential difficulties in performing operations in instances of MoM prostheses. This concern was, nonetheless, expressed in relation to MoM prostheses typically and because the Lord Extraordinary noticed, there was “enormous variation within the reported revision charges amongst totally different manufacturers of MoM Hips” Taking this under consideration and the truth that revision charges for MoM prostheses tended to be larger than these for non-MoM prostheses, the Supreme Court docket held that “the generalized expressions {of professional} concern” didn’t help Mr Hastings in establishing that the Mitch/Accolade product was faulty.

Withdrawal of the Mitch/Accolade product

Mr Hastings sought to argue that the producers’ withdrawal of the Mitch/Accolade product from the market was a “calculated motion” which prevented him from proving his case by reference to statistical proof. The court docket held that this assertion lacked basis. This was based mostly on the Lord Extraordinary’s discovering that the withdrawal of the Mitch/Accolade product was based mostly on industrial issues comparable to low gross sales compared to rival merchandise, the failure of the producers to resume their provide settlement and the sharp decline in gross sales of MoM prostheses by 2010. The Supreme Court docket discovered that such circumstances and reasoning for withdrawing the Mitch/Accolade product from the market didn’t assist Mr Hastings’ case that the product was faulty.

Notices issued in relation to the Mitch/Accolade product

The Medicines and Healthcare Merchandise Regulatory Company and the producers respectively issued a Medical Gadget Alert and Discipline Security Discover with regard to the Mitch/Accolade product in 2012 (the 12 months after it was withdrawn from the market). These have been based mostly on statistical proof that the revision fee for the Mitch/Accolade product was larger than anticipated, that being 10.7% at 4 years. This was in contrast with the steering issued by the Nationwide Institute for Well being and Medical Excellence in 2000 which said that the perfect prostheses had a revision fee of 10% at ten years. The producers, due to this fact, accepted that these notices appeared to assist arguments that the Mitch/Accolade product failed to fulfill the entitled expectation.

The Supreme Court docket disagreed and said that “these notices and statistics can’t of themselves be determinative of the problem whether or not there was a breach of an entitled expectation” The Supreme Court docket clarified that in assessing whether or not an entitled expectation has been met, it ought to “have regard to materials obtainable on the time of proof which was not obtainable in 2012 when the notices have been issued” Due to this fact, the notices have been thought of by the Supreme Court docket in gentle of the uncontested statistical evaluation offered to the Lord Extraordinary by an skilled witness for the defenders. This proof was discovered to contradict the data forming the statistical foundation of the notices and due to this fact undermined Mr Hastings’ means to depend on them to display that the product was faulty.


The choice of the Supreme Court docket confirms the Scottish Courts’ strategy to the entitled expectation check. The Court docket dominated that”there may be no entitlement to an absolute degree of security” for MoM prostheses. That is as a result of pure tendency of a MoM prosthesis to shed steel particles that may trigger delicate tissue harm which can’t, in itself, be categorised as a defect.

This judgment shall be welcomed by medical gadget producers. The significance positioned on statistical proof all through the historical past of this case highlights the uphill battle claimants face when making an attempt to show a product is flawed inside the phrases of the CPA.