“Defective products” under the Consumer Protection Act

Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd [2022] UKSC 19

The Supreme Court has clarified a long-standing issue on whether a hip replacement product was defective within the terms of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 1987. The appellant had argued that the lower courts had erred in law by not holding that the metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacement product used in his surgery in 2009 was defective. This decision follows many first-instance UK cases in which claimants have failed to prove that there was a defect in a product under s2 of the CPA.