Wilson & Ors v Beko Plc (Rev 1)

The Product Liability Directive establishes maximal harmonisation for defective-product liability within its scope. Article 13 does not permit a parallel general system of strict liability that gives consumers wider protection than the Directive. It preserves contractual liability, non-contractual liability based on grounds such as fault, and the specific special liability system recognised by the Directive. Where a claim concerns death, personal injury or non-commercial property damage caused by a defective product, domestic safety legislation cannot be used to bypass the Directive’s limitation period and defences. Domestic legislation must, so far as possible, be read down under the Marleasing principle to conform with the Directive.

The claim arose from a house fire allegedly caused by a faulty Beko fridge-freezer. The claimants sought damages for death, personal injury and property damage in negligence and for breach of statutory duty under Consumer Protection Act 1987, s 41(1), relying on the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994.

The parties agreed that the preliminary issues were questions of law. The defendant accepted, for present purposes, that the appliance was electrical equipment, unsafe, and the probable cause of the fire. The central question was whether the statutory-duty claim could proceed as a strict-liability claim notwithstanding Part I of the 1987 Act, the Directive and their ten-year longstop and statutory defences.

1. Preliminary issues. The court held that s 41(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 were not applicable to this claim, having regard to Directive 85/374/EEC and EU law. Judgment was not entered for the claimants.
2. Harmonisation. The Directive establishes a harmonised system of strict liability for damage caused by defective products. Within the matters it regulates, Member States cannot create a wider system of no-fault liability. The Directive’s scheme includes proof of damage, defect and causation, a ten-year longstop and specified defences.
3. Article 13. Article 13 preserves contractual liability, non-contractual liability based on grounds other than strict liability, such as fault, and the special liability system identified in the Directive. It does not preserve a general domestic system of strict liability for defective products which is more generous than the Directive. The reference to special liability systems concerned the particular German pharmaceutical regime.
4. Scope. The harmonisation principle applies only within the Directive’s scope. Commercial-property damage may fall outside that scope. Here, however, the claims concerned death, personal injury and non-commercial property damage caused by a defective product, matters covered by the Directive and Part I of the 1987 Act. An unsafe product may also be defective.
5. Conforming interpretation. Applying the Marleasing principle, the 1987 Act had to be construed so as to conform with the Directive. The appropriate construction was that obligations imposed by safety regulations under Part II were not actionable under s 41(1) to the extent that the alleged breach related to a defective product causing actionable damage within Part I and the Directive. This prevented the claimants from avoiding the Directive’s longstop and defences.

First-instance decision on preliminary issues. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.