header-logo header-logo

26 January 2012
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Finding the remedy for implants

Law commissioner advocates breach of contract as solution to implant scandal

Breach of contract could be the best remedy for the PIP breast implants controversy, according to law commissioner David Hertzell.

About 40,000 women in the UK have PIP (Poly Implant Prosthèse) implants, which were filled with industrial-grade silicone gel instead of the more expensive medical-grade variety. French doctors have recommended their removal, and discussions are taking place in the UK over who is responsible, what should be done and what type of legal claim might be appropriate. The manufacturers of PIP implants are no longer in business.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley has indicated that women whose implants were inserted on the NHS will be offered free consultations and removal if required, and he has said private healthcare providers have a moral duty to offer the same. However, several private clinics deny responsibility.

Writing in NLJ, Hertzell argues a breach of contract claim “could be easier to prove and potentially offer more generous remedies than other types of claim”.

“Breast augmentation surgery is classified as a works and material contract because the service (the surgeon’s skill and the operation) is so substantial that it is in effect the substance of the contract: the goods (the implants) are ancillary.”

Hertzell points out that the goods supplied must be of “satisfactory quality”, and that safety is an important element of “quality”. “If goods are of unsatisfactory quality, the consumer is entitled, within a reasonable time, to a repair or replacement, unless this would be disproportionate…Here, claimants would be seeking the cost of replacement implants and surgery. It is irrelevant that the implants have not ruptured.”

Any litigation will also need to take into account the psychological implications of implant removal, according to expert witness and psychologist Hugh Koch, of Hugh Koch Associates.

Koch says needing or having implant removal can cause psychological distress in a large group of women, and that professional treatment should be sought if this does not resolve itself within a short period of time.

Issue: 7498 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll