Shaw v Medtronic Corevalve LLC & Ors

A satisfied judgment for damage caused by one tortfeasor bars a claim against another tortfeasor liable for the same damage. Under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, exemplary damages cannot be recovered for the benefit of a deceased person's estate. Aggravated damages are unavailable for personal injury without assault and compensate injury to feelings. Restitutionary damages cannot be awarded for a non-proprietary tort. A free-standing unjust enrichment claim must fall within a recognised category. The court will not permit proceedings to continue merely to develop the law where the pleaded claims have no real prospect of success and no compelling reason for trial exists.

The claimant sued as personal representative of her deceased father's estate following the implantation of a heart valve in 2007. A previous action against the deceased's cardiologist and the relevant NHS trust had resulted in a satisfied judgment. The claimant then brought proceedings against companies within the Medtronic group, alleging negligence, breach of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, unjust enrichment and related remedies.

The First Defendant applied to set aside service out of the jurisdiction. The Third Defendant made a similar application. The Fourth Defendant applied to strike out the claim or obtain summary judgment. The central issues were whether the previous judgment barred recovery, whether the pleaded heads of loss were legally available, and whether the claims had a real prospect of success.

1. First and Third Defendants. The claimant had no claim with a real prospect of success against either defendant. The Third Defendant was not the successor in title to the First Defendant, and the Fourth Defendant's status as a group company did not make it liable for the valve or the alleged conduct. Master McCloud's order was set aside insofar as it concerned the First and Third Defendants, and service out of the jurisdiction was set aside.
2. Effect of the satisfied judgment. Applying the principle in Jameson v CEGB [1998] 1 AC 455, a satisfied judgment for the same damage bars claims against other joint or several tortfeasors. The claimant accepted that this barred recovery of ordinary damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, loss of life, treatment and funeral costs.
3. Exemplary and aggravated damages. Section 1(2)(a)(i) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 expressly excluded exemplary damages recoverable for the estate. Aggravated damages were unavailable because there was no pleaded assault and the deceased, having never regained consciousness, suffered no injury to his feelings.
4. Restitution and unjust enrichment. Following Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA [2009] Ch 390, restitutionary damages could not be awarded for a non-proprietary tort. The alleged unjust enrichment claim was also insufficient: it was not brought within any recognised category of unjust enrichment. An account of profits had no independent basis.
5. Discretion and final orders. The court applied the law as it stood. Although a compelling reason may in some circumstances justify trial under CPR 24.3(b), the discretion is narrower on strike-out and jurisdiction applications. There was no compelling reason to allow these proceedings to continue, particularly against a defendant outside the jurisdiction. The Particulars of Claim were struck out insofar as they related to the Fourth Defendant.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records earlier proceedings concerning the inquest and a separate action, but those proceedings were not the appellate history of this action.