This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Wilkes v Depuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 3096

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/08/2023 06:49

Judgement for the case Wilkes v Depuy International Ltd

Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law

Approximately 1070 pages

Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...


  • Section 3(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 merely necessitates an evaluation of whether, at the time the product was initially made available to the public by the producer, it met the expected level of safety that a reasonable person would anticipate, considering all relevant circumstances as described.


  • The claimant underwent a surgical procedure in 2007 to insert an artificial left hip with components manufactured by the defendant, including a "C-Stem" femoral shaft. In 2010, the C-Stem fractured, and when the components were replaced, evidence of metal debris shedding around the joint was found.
  • The claimant alleges negligence by the defendant for the fracture and metallosis, and also brings a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, contending that the C-Stem had a defect as its safety was not as expected. 
  • The case centres on whether the defendant can be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for the failure of the C-Stem, excluding other considerations. The claimant alleges that the C-Stem had a defect not meeting safety expectations, while the defendant argues against such liability.


  • This case reaffirms the importance of strict liability in product liability cases and emphasises the responsibility of manufacturers and suppliers to ensure the safety of their products. It also highlights the significance of product testing and quality control to prevent injuries and protect consumers.
Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

Related Content

We have 2,500+ case summaries! Take a look.
We are constantly adding case reviews to our database and have built up a massive amount of cases already. Go to: