Product Liability in England and Wales: The Consumer Protection Act 1987

Product Liability in England and Wales: The Consumer Protection Act 1987

Introduction

Product liability is the area of law concerned with the legal responsibility of manufacturers, importers, suppliers and other relevant businesses for harm caused by defective products. It occupies an important position at the intersection of tort law, consumer protection, commercial regulation and public safety. Modern products are often manufactured through complex international supply chains, incorporating components produced by different businesses, assembled in one country, imported by another company and distributed through retailers or online marketplaces. When a product causes injury or property damage, identifying the legally responsible party can therefore be difficult.

In England and Wales, the principal statutory framework for claims based on defective products is Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The Act introduced a form of strict product liability, under which specified defendants may be held liable for damage caused by a defective product without the claimant having to prove that the defendant was negligent. The central question is not necessarily whether the manufacturer acted carelessly, but whether the product’s safety fell below the standard that persons generally are entitled to expect and whether the defect caused the relevant damage.

The official legislation is available in its current revised form at legislation.gov.uk: Consumer Protection Act 1987. Part I, which establishes the defective-product liability regime, contains the principal rules on the meaning of a product, the persons who may be liable, the definition of a defect, available defences, recoverable damage and the prohibition on excluding liability.

The statutory scheme is not, however, a universal guarantee that every consumer who experiences a product failure will receive compensation. A product may be unsuitable for a particular purchaser without being legally defective. A product may cause injury even though its safety meets the standard required by law. A claimant must establish that the statutory conditions are satisfied, including the existence of a defect, causation and legally recognised damage. The defendant may also rely on one of the defences expressly provided by the Act.

Product liability must also be distinguished from negligence, contractual liability, statutory consumer rights and product-safety enforcement. These areas can overlap, but they serve different purposes. A claimant who purchases a faulty appliance, for example, may have contractual rights against the retailer, a possible claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 if the product causes qualifying damage, and access to regulatory procedures if the product presents a safety risk. Each route has its own requirements.

This article examines the statutory regime in detail, including the meaning of a defective product, the persons who may be held liable, the burden of proof, the principal statutory defences, the limits on recoverable damage, the relationship with other causes of action and the procedural restrictions that apply to claims in England and Wales.

1. The development and purpose of strict product liability

Historically, a person injured by a defective product might seek compensation through the law of negligence, contract or other established causes of action. A negligence claim generally requires proof that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, caused the claimant’s injury and thereby produced legally recognised damage. In product cases, the evidential burden can be substantial. The relevant manufacturing process may be inaccessible to the injured person, technical information may be held by the manufacturer, and the precise cause of a failure may be difficult to identify.

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 introduced a separate statutory route designed to address some of these difficulties. Part I established liability for damage caused by a defective product without requiring the claimant to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. The regime reflected the policy that certain risks associated with defective products should not fall entirely on the person who suffers injury merely because that person cannot demonstrate precisely how the manufacturer or another responsible business failed to exercise reasonable care.

Strict liability does not mean absolute liability. The claimant must still prove the statutory elements of the claim, and the defendant may rely on the statutory defences. The product must be defective within the meaning of section 3, the defect must have caused the relevant damage, and the damage must fall within the categories recognised by section 5.

The distinction between strict liability and negligence is fundamental. Under negligence, the court examines the defendant’s conduct and whether reasonable care was exercised. Under the statutory regime, the principal focus is the safety of the product itself. A manufacturer may have followed its internal procedures carefully and may not have acted negligently, yet the product may still be defective under the Act. Conversely, the fact that a product has caused an injury does not automatically establish that its safety was below the legally required standard.

The Act must be read as a statutory scheme rather than as a general principle that manufacturers must compensate everyone harmed by their products. Its language defines the relevant defendants, the required defect, the recoverable damage and the circumstances in which liability may be avoided.

2. What counts as a product?

Section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 defines a product for Part I as goods or electricity, subject to the statutory provisions. The definition includes a product comprised in another product, whether as a component part, raw material or otherwise.

The scope is consequently broader than finished consumer goods sold directly to the public. A component used in a vehicle, a battery incorporated into an electronic device, a material used in a medical product and a raw material incorporated into a manufactured item may all be relevant to a product liability claim.

The inclusion of components is particularly important in modern manufacturing. A finished product may contain parts supplied by multiple businesses. If a defective component causes damage, the statutory analysis may need to identify whether the component producer, the producer of the finished product, or another person falls within the relevant provisions.

The Act also includes electricity within the definition of a product. Its application is not confined to physical objects that can be held in the hand.

However, not every service, item of information or digital resource automatically qualifies as a product under the statutory definition. The treatment of standalone software, digital services, artificial intelligence systems and products whose essential functionality depends on continuing software updates can raise difficult questions. The wording of the 1987 Act was developed around a statutory concept of goods and electricity, and the answer in a particular case may depend on the nature of the product, how it is supplied and the applicable legal authorities.

It is therefore unsafe to assume that every digital failure is automatically governed by the strict liability regime. Depending on the circumstances, contractual rights, negligence, consumer legislation, data protection rules or product-safety requirements may be more directly relevant. The legal classification of software or a digitally enabled product must be considered carefully rather than inferred from the fact that the item is commercially described as a product.

3. Who may be liable under the Act?

Section 2 identifies the principal categories of persons who may be liable when damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product. These include the producer, certain persons who hold themselves out as the producer, and commercial importers who bring the product into the United Kingdom for supply to another person in the course of business.

The statutory structure is intended to give claimants identifiable defendants within the product’s commercial chain. The person who physically manufactured an item may be based overseas, may be difficult to identify or may no longer be trading. The Act therefore does not confine potential liability to the factory that produced the finished item.

The producer

The producer is ordinarily the manufacturer of the product. The statutory definition also covers persons who win or abstract substances that have not been manufactured and persons who carry out an industrial or other process that gives an otherwise unmanufactured product its essential characteristics.

The precise category depends on the product and the process involved. A company manufacturing an electrical appliance may be the producer of the finished appliance. A business manufacturing a component may be the producer of that component. A company undertaking a process that materially determines the essential characteristics of a product may also fall within the statutory definition.

The fact that the product was assembled by one business from components produced by others does not automatically make the assembler the only potentially responsible producer. The statutory provisions must be applied to the relevant product and component.

A person who holds itself out as the producer

Section 2 also covers a person who, by placing its name on a product or using a trade mark or other distinguishing mark in relation to it, holds itself out as the producer.

This provision addresses commercial arrangements in which a product is marketed under a retailer’s or brand owner’s name even though another business physically manufactures it. A business cannot necessarily avoid statutory responsibility simply by outsourcing the manufacturing process while presenting the product to the market as its own.

The relevant question is whether the person has held itself out as the producer in the manner described by the Act. Branding, labelling, packaging and the commercial presentation of the product may be relevant evidence.

Commercial importers

A person who imports a product into the United Kingdom from elsewhere in order to supply it to another person in the course of business may also be liable under section 2.

This is especially important where a product is manufactured abroad. A claimant may otherwise face practical difficulties identifying or pursuing a foreign producer. The statutory importer category can provide a defendant within the United Kingdom commercial supply chain.

The provision does not mean that every person who transports a product across a border is automatically liable. The statutory conditions, including the commercial purpose of the importation, must be satisfied.

Suppliers and the duty to identify the responsible party

Retailers and other suppliers are not automatically liable under section 2 merely because they sold a defective product. However, section 2(3) provides a mechanism under which a supplier may become liable if the statutory identification requirements are met.

Broadly, the injured person must request the supplier to identify one or more persons falling within the principal categories of section 2(2). The request must be made within a reasonable period after the damage occurs and at a time when it is not reasonably practicable for the claimant to identify all the relevant persons. The supplier must then respond within a reasonable period by providing the required identification or identifying the person from whom the supplier obtained the product. Failure to comply with the statutory conditions can expose the supplier to liability.

This mechanism is significant because it encourages traceability within the supply chain. A retailer that cannot itself be treated as the producer may still be required to assist the claimant in identifying the relevant manufacturer or importer.

It is important to distinguish this statutory mechanism from ordinary contractual rights against the retailer. A customer may have a claim against a seller under consumer contract legislation even where the conditions for supplier liability under the 1987 Act have not been satisfied.

Joint and several liability

Section 2(5) provides that where two or more persons are liable under Part I for the same damage, their liability is joint and several.

This means that where the statutory requirements are satisfied against more than one defendant, the claimant may in principle recover the full amount of the recoverable damage from any one of them, subject to the applicable rules. Questions of contribution or allocation between defendants may then arise separately.

The provision is particularly relevant where the defect involves a component producer, a finished-product producer and an importer. The claimant does not necessarily need to establish that only one business was involved in the product’s defective condition.

4. The central test: when is a product defective?

Section 3 provides the central definition of defect. A product is defective if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect.

The statutory test is concerned with safety, not merely quality, durability, suitability or commercial value. A product can be disappointing, inefficient, expensive to repair or unfit for a particular purchaser’s purpose without necessarily being defective under the Act. Equally, a product may be defective even if it performs its intended function, if its safety falls below the level persons generally are entitled to expect.

The distinction is important because the Act does not establish a general statutory guarantee that every product will work perfectly or last for a particular period. Those questions may be addressed by contractual terms and consumer rights, while the statutory product liability regime focuses on damage caused by a lack of legally expected safety.

The expectation is objective and normative. It is not determined solely by what one claimant personally expected, nor simply by what a manufacturer says consumers should expect. The court evaluates the legally relevant standard of safety in light of all the circumstances identified by the Act.

Safety is broader than the prevention of physical injury

Section 3 makes clear that safety includes safety in relation to components incorporated into a product and risks of damage to property, as well as risks of death or personal injury.

The statutory concept is therefore not restricted to whether a product can cause bodily harm. A defective electrical device might create a fire risk that damages other property. A defective component might compromise the safety of a larger machine. The legal analysis must identify the relevant danger and the damage caused by it.

However, the fact that a product has failed or caused some loss does not itself establish a defect. The court must consider whether the product’s safety was below the statutory standard and whether the alleged defect caused the damage.

The circumstances listed in section 3(2)

Section 3(2) states that all the circumstances must be taken into account when determining the level of safety persons generally are entitled to expect. It specifically identifies several matters:

• The manner in which, and purposes for which, the product has been marketed.
• The product’s presentation, including its get-up and the use of marks or branding.
• Instructions and warnings concerning the use or non-use of the product.
• What might reasonably be expected to be done with or in relation to the product.
• The time when the producer supplied the product to another person.

These matters are not a closed list. They provide a framework for evaluating the product’s safety in its real commercial and practical context.

A product marketed for use by children, for example, may be assessed in light of foreseeable use by children. A product intended for use in a demanding industrial environment may be assessed in light of that intended setting and the warnings supplied. A product sold with a clear warning about a particular danger may generate different safety expectations from an apparently ordinary product presented as safe for general use.

The court must nevertheless avoid treating any single factor as automatically decisive. A warning does not necessarily cure a dangerous design, just as a product’s failure does not automatically prove that it was defective. The issue is the overall level of safety persons generally were entitled to expect.

5. The distinction between a defect and negligence

The statutory regime is frequently described as strict liability because it does not require proof of negligence. That does not make the definition of defect straightforward.

In a negligence claim, the court examines whether the defendant’s conduct fell below the required standard of care. Relevant questions may include whether the manufacturer carried out adequate testing, identified foreseeable hazards, used appropriate materials, followed reasonable manufacturing procedures and provided adequate warnings.

Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the central question is different: did the product’s safety fall below the level persons generally were entitled to expect when the relevant statutory conditions are applied?

A manufacturer may have exercised reasonable care but still have supplied a product that is defective. Conversely, a manufacturing process may have been careless without the claimant necessarily proving that the product caused the relevant damage or that its safety fell below the statutory standard.

The two causes of action may therefore lead to different results on the same facts. A claimant may plead statutory product liability and negligence in the alternative where the evidence supports both routes. The claimant must, however, satisfy the requirements of each cause of action separately.

This distinction is especially important in technically complex cases. A product may fail because of a manufacturing error affecting one item, a design feature shared by an entire product line, inadequate warnings or a combination of factors. The legal analysis should identify the alleged defect with sufficient clarity while recognising that the claimant does not invariably have to prove the precise scientific mechanism by which the product became unsafe.

6. Manufacturing defects, design defects and warning defects

Although the Act does not formally establish three separate statutory categories of defect, product liability disputes are often analysed by reference to manufacturing, design and warning defects. These categories can help organise the evidence, but the ultimate question remains the statutory safety test.

Manufacturing defects

A manufacturing defect arises where a particular product differs from the intended design or specification in a way that makes it less safe than persons generally are entitled to expect.

Examples might include a contaminated batch of food, a wrongly assembled component, a faulty electrical connection or a product made with a material that does not meet the relevant specification.

A manufacturing defect may affect only one item or a limited group of products. The fact that other products in the same line are safe does not necessarily establish that the particular product was not defective.

Evidence may include technical inspections, laboratory testing, manufacturing records, quality-control documentation, photographs and expert analysis. The claimant must establish the defect and its causal connection to the damage, but the Act does not require proof that a specific employee was negligent during manufacture.

Design defects

A design defect concerns a product’s intended configuration or characteristics rather than a departure from its intended design during manufacture.

A product may be manufactured exactly as designed yet still present a safety risk below the level persons generally are entitled to expect. The assessment may require consideration of the nature and severity of the risk, the product’s intended benefits, available alternative designs, the circumstances of use and the information provided to users.

The existence of a safer alternative design may be relevant evidence, but the 1987 Act does not simply prescribe a mechanical test under which every product is defective whenever a safer alternative can be imagined. The statutory question remains whether the product’s safety met the required standard in all the circumstances.

Warning and instruction defects

A product may also be alleged to be defective because users were not given adequate warnings or instructions about a foreseeable danger.

Section 3(2)(a) expressly makes instructions and warnings relevant to the safety assessment. A product that presents a serious risk when used in an ordinary or reasonably foreseeable manner may fall below the expected safety standard if the information supplied fails adequately to communicate that risk.

The adequacy of a warning depends on its clarity, prominence, content, audience and practical ability to communicate the danger. A warning may not be sufficient simply because it appears somewhere in a manual or on packaging that users are unlikely to consult.

At the same time, the law does not require a warning about every imaginable risk. The assessment concerns the product’s overall safety and what persons generally are entitled to expect, taking account of the circumstances and the uses that may reasonably be anticipated.

7. Important judicial guidance on the meaning of defect

The wording of section 3 has generated significant litigation. The cases illustrate the difficulty of defining an objective safety expectation without turning strict liability into automatic liability for every adverse outcome.

A v National Blood Authority

In A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289, the High Court considered claims brought by people who had contracted hepatitis C through contaminated blood supplied for transfusion. The case is an important authority on the statutory meaning of defect and the relationship between the risk inherent in a product and the safety that the public is entitled to expect.

The judgment is available through the legal case database BAILII: A and Others v National Blood Authority.

The case demonstrates that a producer’s inability to eliminate a danger through available precautions does not automatically answer whether the product was defective. The statutory issue concerns the level of safety to which people are legally entitled, not simply whether the producer acted reasonably in trying to prevent harm.

The decision has been influential, but it should not be read as establishing that every product associated with a serious injury is defective. Later judicial consideration has emphasised the need to assess all relevant circumstances and the particular product’s safety rather than treating the occurrence of harm as conclusive.

Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd

In Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 3096 (QB), the High Court considered a claim concerning a hip replacement component that fractured after implantation. The claimant argued that the component was defective under the 1987 Act.

The judgment is available at BAILII: Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd.

The case is particularly significant because it examined how a court should approach the statutory safety expectation in relation to a complex medical device. It stressed the need to identify the alleged defect and assess the product’s safety in the context of all relevant circumstances. The fact that a product failed, even earlier than hoped, did not itself establish that the product was defective when supplied.

The decision also illustrates the importance of distinguishing the statutory inquiry from negligence. The claimant did not have to prove negligent design or manufacture in order to bring a statutory claim, but still had to establish that the product’s safety fell below the level persons generally were entitled to expect.

These cases demonstrate that the defect test is contextual. Neither the absence of negligence nor the occurrence of injury automatically determines the outcome. The court must assess the statutory standard against the evidence relating to the product, its presentation, intended and foreseeable use, warnings, relevant risks and the time of supply.

8. The claimant’s burden of proof

A claimant bringing a claim under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 must establish the elements necessary for statutory liability. In broad terms, the claimant must show that the relevant item was a product, that the defendant falls within a category of person potentially liable under section 2, that the product was defective within section 3, that the defect caused the damage and that the damage falls within section 5.

The Act removes the need to prove negligence, but it does not reverse the entire burden of proof or presume that every product failure is a defect. A claimant must provide evidence capable of establishing the statutory requirements.

The evidence required will depend on the product and the alleged defect. A claim involving a shattered glass bottle may require a different investigation from one involving a medical implant, a pharmaceutical product or a complex industrial machine.

Expert evidence is often important where the defect concerns engineering, chemistry, medicine, materials science or another technical discipline. The court may need to consider whether the product’s design or composition created the alleged danger, whether the product was being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner and whether the defect caused the injury.

The claimant does not necessarily have to prove every detail of the manufacturing process or identify the precise person responsible for a fault. The statutory regime is intended to avoid making proof of negligence a precondition. Nevertheless, uncertainty about the cause of a product failure may still make it difficult to establish that a defect existed and caused the relevant damage.

A claimant should therefore distinguish between three questions: whether the product was defective, whether that defect caused the damage, and whether the defendant is a person against whom the Act permits recovery. Evidence supporting one of these propositions does not automatically prove the others.

9. Causation: connecting the defect to the damage

Section 2 imposes liability where damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product. The wording recognises that a defect need not be the sole cause of the harm. Other factors may contribute, provided the statutory causal requirement is satisfied.

For example, a defective electrical component may cause a fire that is aggravated by the location of the appliance. A defective safety mechanism may contribute to an accident alongside the user’s conduct. A product’s defect may interact with another physical condition to produce an injury.

The claimant must nevertheless establish a causal connection between the defect and the damage. It is not enough to show that the product was defective in some respect if that defect did not cause the injury or loss complained of.

Causation may be particularly difficult where the product has multiple possible failure mechanisms or where the claimant’s injury could have resulted from an independent condition. Expert evidence may be required to distinguish between a defect that caused the damage and a defect that was merely present.

The statutory language also allows for concurrent causes. Where a defect contributes to damage alongside another cause, liability may arise if the legal causal requirements are met. The existence of another contributing factor does not automatically relieve the defendant of responsibility.

The assessment of causation remains separate from the definition of defect. A claimant must establish both: that the product’s safety was below the statutory standard and that the relevant defect caused the damage.

10. What damage is recoverable?

Section 5 defines the damage for which liability may arise under Part I. In general terms, the statutory regime covers death, personal injury and certain losses of or damage to property.

The provision also contains important exclusions and thresholds. These restrictions mean that the Act is not a general route to compensation for every economic loss associated with a defective product.

Death and personal injury

Death and personal injury are expressly included. Personal injury may encompass physical injury and recognised illness caused by exposure to or use of a defective product, subject to the ordinary requirements of proof and causation.

Examples might include burns caused by a defective appliance, injury from a product that unexpectedly breaks during reasonably foreseeable use, or disease caused by a harmful substance in a defective product. Whether liability is established depends on the statutory requirements and the evidence in the particular case.

Where a person dies as a result of a defective product, the legal consequences may include claims brought by the deceased person’s estate or by eligible dependants under other applicable legislation. Those claims involve their own statutory conditions and should not be confused with the product liability provisions alone.

Damage to the defective product itself

Section 5(2) excludes liability under section 2 for loss of or damage to the defective product itself, as well as for loss of or damage to the whole or any part of a product supplied with the defective product comprised in it.

This is a central limitation. If a defective washing machine simply stops working, the cost of replacing or repairing the machine itself will not ordinarily be recoverable under Part I as damage to the product itself. The purchaser may instead have contractual remedies against the seller or other rights under consumer legislation.

If, however, the defective machine causes a fire that damages other qualifying property or injures a person, the resulting damage may fall within the statutory categories, subject to the other requirements of the Act.

The distinction reflects the purpose of the strict liability regime. It addresses harm caused by unsafe products rather than operating as a general warranty of quality or durability.

Damage to other property

Section 5(3) restricts recovery for property damage. The property must be of a description ordinarily intended for private use, occupation or consumption, and it must have been intended by the person suffering the loss or damage mainly for that person’s own private use, occupation or consumption at the time it was damaged.

This means that the Act’s property-damage provisions are directed towards qualifying private property rather than every form of commercial or business property. Damage to industrial equipment, business stock or property intended primarily for commercial use may fall outside this statutory route, even where the product that caused the damage was defective.

The classification of the property and the purpose for which it was intended must be examined carefully. The fact that an individual owns an item does not automatically mean it qualifies as property intended mainly for private use.

The £275 minimum threshold

Section 5(4) provides that no damages may be awarded under Part I for loss of or damage to property if the amount that would otherwise be awarded to the claimant, excluding interest, does not exceed £275.

The threshold applies to qualifying property damage under the Act. It does not apply in the same way to claims for death or personal injury.

The threshold is another reason why the Act should not be treated as a general compensation mechanism for minor product losses. A claim may be legally arguable in other respects yet fall outside the statutory property-damage remedy because the recoverable amount does not exceed the threshold.

11. Statutory defences

Section 4 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 establishes several defences. The defendant must establish the relevant statutory conditions; a general assertion that the product was carefully manufactured or that the defendant did not intend to cause harm is not, by itself, a complete defence.

The defendant did not supply the product

Section 4 provides a defence where the person proceeded against did not at any time supply the product to another. This defence concerns the statutory connection between the defendant and the product.

The provision must be considered alongside the categories of defendant identified in section 2. Whether a person manufactured, branded, imported or supplied the product, and whether the statutory conditions are satisfied, will depend on the evidence.

Supply outside the course of business

The Act provides a defence in specified circumstances where the defendant’s only supply of the product was otherwise than in the course of business and the other statutory conditions are satisfied.

The regime is primarily concerned with commercial product distribution. However, the availability of this defence depends on the precise wording of section 4 and the defendant’s status under section 2. It should not be assumed that every non-commercial transaction automatically excludes liability in every circumstance.

The defect did not exist when the product was supplied

A defendant may rely on the statutory defence where the defect was not present at the relevant time of supply, subject to the precise statutory requirements.

This defence may be relevant where a product was damaged after supply, altered by a third party, improperly maintained or subjected to conditions that created the dangerous characteristic only later. The court must determine whether the product was defective when the relevant producer supplied it and whether the alleged defect existed at that time.

Ordinary wear and tear, misuse, unauthorised alteration or subsequent damage may be relevant to this question, but none should be treated as an automatic answer without examining the facts.

Compliance with mandatory requirements

Section 4 provides a defence where the defect is attributable to compliance with a requirement imposed by or under an enactment or with a relevant assimilated obligation.

The defence is concerned with a defect attributable to compliance with a mandatory legal requirement. It is not a general defence whenever a product has obtained regulatory approval or the manufacturer has complied with some applicable standard.

The precise requirement and the relationship between compliance and the alleged defect must be established. Regulatory compliance may be relevant evidence in the overall assessment, but it does not automatically establish that the product was not defective.

The development risks defence

One of the most important statutory defences concerns the state of scientific and technical knowledge when the product was put into circulation.

Under section 4, a defendant may be able to establish a defence if the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was not such that a producer of products of the same description might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed in the producer’s products while they were under the producer’s control.

This is commonly known as the development risks defence. It recognises that some dangers may not be discoverable using the scientific and technical knowledge available at the relevant time, even where the product later proves to have a defect.

The defence is not satisfied merely because the particular manufacturer did not actually know of the danger. The statutory question concerns the state of scientific and technical knowledge and whether a producer of the relevant class might reasonably have been expected to discover the defect on the basis of that knowledge.

The distinction between lack of actual knowledge and the statutory development risks defence is crucial. A manufacturer cannot necessarily rely on its own ignorance if the relevant defect was discoverable through the scientific and technical knowledge available at the time.

The defence may be particularly important in cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, chemical substances and products whose risks become apparent only after extensive use or later scientific investigation.

The component-part defence

The Act also provides a defence for a producer of a component where the defect is attributable to the design of the finished product into which the component has been incorporated or to instructions given by the producer of that finished product.

This provision recognises that a component manufacturer may have limited control over the overall design and instructions of the finished product. Its availability depends on the statutory conditions and on the relationship between the alleged defect, the component and the finished product.

It does not provide a blanket exemption to all component producers. If the defect is attributable to the component itself rather than the finished product’s design or instructions, the defence may not be available.

12. Can a business exclude product liability?

Section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 prohibits the limitation or exclusion of liability under Part I by a contract term, notice or other provision.

This is an important consumer-protection safeguard. A producer or importer cannot ordinarily avoid statutory liability under Part I simply by placing a disclaimer on packaging, including a clause in standard terms or displaying a notice stating that the product is supplied without responsibility for injury.

The prohibition applies to liability under the statutory product liability regime. It should not be confused with the separate question of whether contractual rights concerning the quality or performance of a product can be limited in particular circumstances. Those issues are governed by their own legal framework.

The prohibition also does not remove the claimant’s burden of proving the statutory elements. A disclaimer may be ineffective to exclude liability, but the claimant must still establish a qualifying defect, causation, damage and a defendant within the scope of the Act.

The statutory approach reflects the view that strict product liability should not be defeated by standard-form terms imposed on purchasers who have little practical ability to negotiate the conditions on which products are sold.

13. Product liability and consumer contract rights

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is only one part of the legal framework governing defective goods. A purchaser may also have rights against the seller under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, depending on the transaction and the nature of the defect.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 addresses contractual standards for goods supplied to consumers, including requirements that goods be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose where the statutory conditions are met, and as described. These rights focus on the contractual relationship between trader and consumer.

The official legislation is available at legislation.gov.uk: Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The distinction is fundamental. If a laptop purchased by a consumer develops a fault, the consumer may have a contractual remedy against the retailer even if the fault has not caused personal injury or qualifying damage to other property. A claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, by contrast, requires damage within section 5 caused by a defect meeting the statutory safety test.

A product may therefore be faulty for the purposes of consumer contract law without being defective for the purposes of strict product liability. The two regimes use different legal standards and address different forms of loss.

A consumer may also have rights under the Consumer Rights Act where a product fails to meet a contractual description or quality standard, even if the manufacturer acted with reasonable care. Conversely, a person injured by a defective product may have a claim under the 1987 Act even if that person did not personally purchase the product.

The relevant cause of action depends on the claimant’s relationship to the transaction, the nature of the defect, the loss suffered and the legal requirements of the particular regime.

14. Product liability and negligence

A claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 may be brought alongside a negligence claim where the facts support both causes of action.

Negligence focuses on whether the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty and caused legally recognised damage. In a manufacturing case, the claimant may allege inadequate testing, negligent design, failure to identify a foreseeable risk or inadequate warnings.

The statutory claim focuses on whether the product was defective and caused qualifying damage. The claimant does not need to establish the same allegations of careless conduct, although much of the technical evidence may be relevant to both claims.

The distinction may affect the evidence, available defences and the way the case is presented. For example, proof that the manufacturer followed reasonable procedures may be relevant to negligence, but it does not necessarily dispose of the statutory claim. Similarly, proof that a product failed does not necessarily establish negligence or a statutory defect.

The availability of alternative causes of action is particularly important where the defect is technically difficult to explain. A claimant may be able to establish that the product’s safety fell below the statutory standard without being able to identify the precise negligent act. In another case, evidence may support negligence even if the claimant cannot establish a defect within section 3.

Each cause of action must nevertheless be assessed independently. The court cannot simply assume that because one claim fails, every alternative claim must also fail.

15. Limitation periods: the three-year period and the ten-year longstop

Claims under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 are subject to special limitation provisions. For England and Wales, these are contained in section 11A of the Limitation Act 1980, inserted by the 1987 Act.

The official provision is available at legislation.gov.uk: Limitation Act 1980, section 11A.

Two time limits are particularly important.

First, an action must generally be brought within three years from the later of the date on which the cause of action accrued and the relevant date of knowledge, as defined by the statutory provisions. The precise application of this rule depends on the type of damage and the facts. For personal injury, the claimant’s knowledge of the relevant facts may be especially important where the connection between the product and the injury was not immediately apparent.

Second, the Act imposes a ten-year longstop measured from the relevant time defined by the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The longstop is particularly significant because it operates to extinguish the right of action after the statutory period, subject to the legislation’s provisions concerning claims already brought. It is not simply an ordinary limitation period that always begins when the claimant discovers the defect.

The two periods serve different functions. The three-year period is linked to accrual and, where relevant, knowledge. The ten-year longstop limits the period during which the statutory product liability right can exist.

These rules can produce difficult results. A person may discover an injury or a possible connection with a product many years after it was supplied. Even if the three-year period has not expired by reference to the relevant date of knowledge, the ten-year longstop may still prevent a claim under Part I.

The statutory longstop makes it essential to identify the relevant time of supply and obtain advice promptly where a product may have caused serious injury. A claim under another cause of action may be governed by different limitation rules, but it should not be assumed that another route will necessarily remain available.

16. Product recalls and the wider product-safety framework

Product liability must be distinguished from product-safety regulation. The 1987 Act provides a route for civil claims for qualifying damage caused by defective products. Product-safety legislation and regulatory procedures, by contrast, may require businesses to take preventive action, provide warnings, withdraw unsafe products from the market or conduct recalls.

A product may be subject to a safety investigation or recall even before any claimant has established a civil claim for damages. Regulatory action may be concerned with preventing future harm, whereas a product liability claim focuses on whether a particular claimant has suffered legally recoverable damage because of a defect.

Likewise, the absence of a recall does not establish that a product was safe or that the statutory definition of defect cannot be satisfied. A recall may be relevant evidence, but it does not automatically determine the outcome of a civil claim.

The applicable regulatory requirements depend on the product category. Toys, electrical goods, machinery, medical devices, chemicals and other regulated products may be governed by different rules and competent authorities.

Businesses involved in the manufacture, importation or supply of goods should therefore distinguish between their civil liability exposure and their regulatory obligations. Compliance with product-safety requirements may be relevant to the facts, but it does not automatically answer every question under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

17. Practical examples of how the Act operates

The statutory principles become clearer when applied to hypothetical situations.

A defective electrical appliance causes a house fire

Suppose an electrical appliance contains a defective internal component that overheats during ordinary use and causes a fire. The fire damages the purchaser’s home and injures a person present.

The claimant would need to establish that the appliance or relevant component was defective under section 3, that the defendant fell within a category covered by section 2 and that the defect caused the injury and qualifying property damage. The manufacturer, an own-brand producer or a commercial importer might be a potential defendant depending on the supply chain.

The cost of replacing the appliance itself would ordinarily be excluded under section 5(2), but qualifying injury and damage to other private property could fall within the statutory regime. The claimant would still need to address causation and any defence raised by the defendant.

A product fails but causes no other damage

Suppose a newly purchased kitchen appliance stops working because of a manufacturing fault, but nobody is injured and no other property is damaged.

The product may be faulty, but the cost of repairing or replacing the appliance itself would not ordinarily be recoverable under Part I of the 1987 Act. The purchaser may instead have contractual rights against the retailer under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

This example illustrates why the statutory product liability regime should not be confused with the general law governing defective goods.

A medical device fails after implantation

Suppose an implanted medical device fractures several years after a procedure. The fact of fracture and the need for replacement surgery do not automatically establish a defect under the 1987 Act.

The court would need to assess the device’s safety when supplied, taking account of its design, intended function, warnings, known risks and other relevant circumstances. The claimant would also need to establish that a statutory defect caused the damage.

The reasoning in Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd illustrates the importance of this distinction. A product may fail without necessarily being defective within the statutory meaning.

A component damages a finished product

Suppose a defective component causes damage to a larger machine. The component producer and the producer of the finished product may both require consideration, depending on the nature of the defect and the applicable statutory provisions.

The component producer may seek to rely on the statutory defence concerning a defect attributable to the design of the finished product or to instructions supplied by its producer. Whether that defence is available depends on the facts and the statutory requirements.

The case demonstrates the importance of tracing the defect through the supply chain rather than assuming that only the final assembler can be responsible.

18. The limits and policy significance of strict product liability

Strict product liability reflects a deliberate legal choice to allocate certain risks of defective products without requiring proof of negligence. The claimant may not have access to the manufacturing process, and a product may cause serious harm even where the precise careless act cannot be identified.

The regime nevertheless contains limits intended to maintain a balance between consumer protection and the legitimate interests of producers and suppliers. The claimant must establish a defect rather than merely an unsatisfactory outcome. The product must have caused qualifying damage. The defendant must fall within the statutory categories. Defences may apply, and the longstop limits the period during which the statutory right can be exercised.

The distinction between safety and quality is central to this balance. Product liability is not intended to replace the entire law of contract or to guarantee commercial perfection. A product may be unreliable, inconvenient or unsuitable for a particular purpose without necessarily presenting a legally defective level of safety.

At the same time, a producer cannot automatically avoid liability by showing that it acted carefully. The statutory scheme directs attention to the product and the safety persons generally were entitled to expect, rather than making proof of fault an indispensable condition of recovery.

The development of new technologies continues to test the boundaries of the framework. Products increasingly combine physical components, embedded software, remote updates, automated decision-making and interconnected services. These developments may raise questions about what constitutes the relevant product, when a defect existed, whose responsibility it was to provide updates and whether a risk arose from the product itself or from a separate service.

The correct legal response is not to assume that every new technology falls neatly within the existing categories. Instead, the statutory language, relevant case law and any applicable sector-specific rules must be examined. Where the legal classification is uncertain, alternative causes of action may need to be considered.

Key Takeaways

• Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 establishes a strict product liability regime in England and Wales.
• Strict liability does not mean absolute liability: the claimant must establish a qualifying product, defect, causal connection, damage and a defendant covered by the Act.
• A product is defective if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect, assessed in light of all relevant circumstances.
• The safety assessment includes the product’s marketing, presentation, instructions, warnings, reasonably foreseeable use and the time of supply.
• Potential defendants include producers, persons holding themselves out as producers and qualifying commercial importers.
• A supplier may become liable under section 2(3) if the statutory requirements for requesting and providing identification of the responsible person are satisfied.
• The Act covers death, personal injury and certain damage to private property, but excludes damage to the defective product itself.
• Property-damage claims are subject to statutory restrictions, including the £275 minimum threshold under section 5(4).
• Statutory defences include the development risks defence and, in appropriate circumstances, a defence for a component producer where the defect is attributable to the finished product’s design or instructions.
• Section 7 prohibits the exclusion or limitation of liability under Part I by contract term, notice or other provision.
• Product liability is distinct from contractual remedies under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and from negligence claims, although these causes of action may overlap.
• Claims are generally subject to a three-year period linked to accrual and relevant knowledge, together with a ten-year longstop under the special limitation provisions.
• A product’s failure, a product recall or the existence of a regulatory breach does not automatically establish statutory liability.
• Complex products, medical devices, software-enabled goods and international supply chains may require detailed technical and legal analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Product liability under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is the legal responsibility of specified persons for qualifying damage caused by defective products. The regime is based on strict liability, meaning that the claimant does not have to prove negligence but must establish the statutory requirements, including defect, causation and damage.

2. What does “strict liability” mean in product liability law?

Strict liability means that the claimant does not need to prove that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. The focus is on whether the product was defective under the statutory safety test and whether that defect caused the damage. It does not mean that the defendant is liable whenever a product fails or causes injury.

3. Who can be sued for a defective product?

Depending on the circumstances, a claim may be brought against the product’s producer, a person who has held itself out as the producer through branding or other distinguishing marks, or a qualifying commercial importer. A supplier may also become liable where the statutory identification procedure under section 2(3) applies and its requirements are not met.

4. Does a claimant have to prove that the manufacturer was negligent?

No. A claim under Part I of the 1987 Act does not require proof of negligence. The claimant must nevertheless establish that the product was defective, that the defect caused qualifying damage and that the defendant falls within the statutory framework. A separate negligence claim may also be available if the evidence supports it.

5. What makes a product defective under section 3?

A product is defective if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect. The court considers all relevant circumstances, including how the product was marketed and presented, the instructions and warnings supplied, what uses could reasonably be expected and the time when the product was supplied.

6. Is every faulty product defective under the Act?

No. The Act focuses on safety rather than every form of poor quality or unsatisfactory performance. A product that breaks down may give rise to contractual remedies, but a claim under Part I requires a defect within the statutory meaning and qualifying damage caused by that defect.

7. Can a person claim compensation if a defective product damages only the product itself?

Ordinarily, not under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Section 5(2) excludes loss of or damage to the defective product itself. The purchaser may instead have rights against the seller under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 or another applicable legal route.

8. Can a claimant recover for damage to a house caused by a defective product?

Potentially. Section 5 permits recovery for qualifying damage to property, subject to restrictions. The property must ordinarily be intended for private use, occupation or consumption and must have been intended by the claimant mainly for that purpose. The £275 minimum threshold also applies to property-damage awards under the Act.

9. What is the development risks defence?

The development risks defence may apply where the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was not such that a producer of products of the same description might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed while the product was under the producer’s control. The defence concerns the objectively available state of knowledge, not simply whether the particular manufacturer actually knew of the danger.

10. Can a manufacturer exclude liability through a disclaimer?

Section 7 prohibits liability under Part I from being limited or excluded by a contract term, notice or other provision. A manufacturer cannot ordinarily avoid statutory product liability simply by placing a disclaimer on packaging or in standard terms. The claimant must still prove the elements of the statutory claim.

11. What is the difference between product liability and consumer rights for faulty goods?

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 concerns qualifying damage caused by a defective product. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides contractual rights concerning goods supplied to consumers, including standards of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and conformity with description. A product may breach a contractual quality requirement without meeting the statutory definition of a defective product.

12. What is the limitation period for a product liability claim?

In England and Wales, claims under Part I are generally subject to a three-year period linked to accrual and the relevant date of knowledge, together with a ten-year longstop measured from the statutory relevant time. The precise application depends on the circumstances. The longstop can extinguish the statutory right even where the claimant discovers the injury or its possible cause later.

13. Does a product recall prove that a product was defective under the Act?

No. A recall may provide relevant evidence that a product presents a safety concern, but it does not automatically establish every element of a statutory claim. The claimant must still prove the relevant defect, causation, qualifying damage and liability of the defendant.

14. Does the Consumer Protection Act 1987 apply to software and artificial intelligence products?

The answer may depend on the nature of the product and how it is supplied. The Act’s statutory definition refers to goods and electricity and includes components incorporated into other products. Standalone software, digital services and some AI-related systems may raise difficult classification questions. Other legal regimes may be relevant, and it is unsafe to assume that every software-related harm automatically falls within Part I.

15. Can a claimant bring both a product liability claim and a negligence claim?

Yes, where the facts support both causes of action. The statutory claim focuses on whether the product was defective and caused qualifying damage. Negligence focuses on whether the defendant breached a duty of care. The claimant must establish the legal requirements for each claim independently.

Conclusion

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 remains a central part of product liability law in England and Wales. Its significance lies in establishing a statutory route to compensation for qualifying damage caused by defective products without requiring the claimant to prove negligence. The regime places the safety of the product at the centre of the inquiry while identifying the persons who may be held liable, the damage that may be recovered and the defences that may apply.

The statutory scheme nevertheless has defined boundaries. A product failure does not automatically establish a defect, and a defective product does not create liability for every form of financial loss. Claimants must establish the relevant safety deficiency, causal connection and recoverable damage, while defendants may rely on the defences Parliament has provided.

The Act also operates alongside negligence, contractual consumer rights and product-safety regulation. Understanding the relationship between these regimes is essential because they address different legal questions and may provide different remedies.

Ultimately, product liability law seeks to allocate the risks associated with unsafe products in a principled way. It protects people harmed by defective products while preserving the distinction between unsafe products, ordinary product failure and the broader commercial risks of buying and using goods. As technology and supply chains evolve, the statutory language and judicial interpretation of the Act remain essential to determining where responsibility lies.