Pollard v Tesco Stores Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 393

Facts

  • Mrs. Pollard purchased a bottle of paracetamol from Tesco Stores Ltd, which was marketed as having child-resistant packaging compliant with British Standard BS 8404.
  • Her three-year-old child managed to open the packaging and ingested a large quantity of the medication, resulting in severe health problems.
  • Mrs. Pollard brought a claim against Tesco, alleging the packaging was defective and did not meet required safety standards.
  • The trial court ruled in favour of Tesco, finding that the packaging complied with relevant standards, and there was no evidence of a manufacturing defect.
  • The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the lower court had erred in its application of the law regarding product safety and liability.

Issues

  1. Whether the child-resistant packaging was defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
  2. Whether compliance with British Standard BS 8404 sufficed to meet safety expectations for child-resistant packaging.
  3. Whether the incident constituted evidence of a fundamental flaw or was a statistically possible occurrence within accepted safety standards.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the packaging was not defective as it met the standards required by British Standard BS 8404.
  • The fact that the child managed to open the packaging was considered a statistically possible event, not indicative of a product defect.
  • Compliance with applicable safety standards and testing procedures served as evidence that the product satisfied the safety expectations outlined in the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
  • The judgment affirmed the trial court's decision in favour of Tesco Stores Ltd.

Legal Principles

  • The Consumer Protection Act 1987 imposes strict liability on producers for damage caused by defective products; Section 3 defines defect by reference to the safety a person is entitled to expect.
  • Compliance with recognised industry standards, such as British Standard BS 8404, may be used as evidence that a product meets the statutory safety requirements.
  • Absolute safety is not required; standards acknowledge the natural limitation that a small percentage of children may be able to open packaging designed to be resistant.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal confirmed that Tesco’s child-resistant packaging was not defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 since it met established safety standards, and the incident represented a statistical possibility rather than a design flaw. This case underlines the evidential significance of compliance with industry standards in product liability claims.

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