A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289

Facts

  • Claimants contracted hepatitis C after receiving blood or blood products supplied by the National Blood Authority (NBA).
  • The NBA distributed these products without knowledge at that time that they were contaminated with hepatitis C.
  • Claimants alleged the blood products were defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
  • The legal framework involved implementation of the EU Product Liability Directive, imposing strict liability for defective products.
  • The NBA argued that any infection risk was a natural characteristic of blood, not a defect.

Issues

  1. Whether the blood products provided by the NBA were “defective” under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
  2. Whether hepatitis C contamination constituted a defect even if the risk was not scientifically detectable at the time of supply.
  3. Whether the NBA could avoid liability by claiming the risk of infection was a natural product characteristic.
  4. The relevance of foreseeability or knowledge of risk to strict liability under the Act.
  5. The standard of safety the public is entitled to expect of medical products supplied by the NBA.

Decision

  • The court determined that the hepatitis C-contaminated blood products were defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
  • It held that “defectiveness” is assessed objectively, based on the public’s reasonable safety expectations.
  • The foreseeability of harm or the state of scientific knowledge was not a defense to strict liability.
  • The NBA’s argument that the risk was a natural feature of the product was rejected; contamination with a harmful agent rendered the blood defective.
  • Claimants could claim compensation without the need to prove negligence.

Legal Principles

  • Strict liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 applies regardless of the producer’s fault or actual knowledge.
  • A product is defective if it fails to meet the safety the public is generally entitled to expect, having regard to all relevant circumstances.
  • The presence of a harmful contaminant in a medical product is a defect, even if the risk could not be detected by current scientific standards.
  • Neither foreseeability of harm nor scientific knowledge at the time of supply provides a defense to strict liability.
  • The Act prioritizes consumer protection and ensures compensation to those harmed by defective products.

Conclusion

The High Court held the National Blood Authority strictly liable for supplying hepatitis C-contaminated blood under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, determining defectiveness by objective public expectations and excluding scientific knowledge or foreseeability as defenses.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal