Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor v CFP (A Minor) & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a personal injury claim initiated by the Plaintiff, who was approximately 13 months old at the time of the incident on 20 August 1997. The Plaintiff ingested dishwasher powder from a plastic bottle, resulting in serious illness. The bottle was purchased from Company A (the first defendant), and the bottle was manufactured by Company B (the second defendant). The claim alleged that the bottle's neck and cap were defective, making it easier to open than it should have been, which allowed the Plaintiff to access the contents.

The defendants joined the Plaintiff's mother as a third defendant, alleging negligence on her part in leaving the bottle accessible. The trial judge found the first and second defendants liable but acquitted the mother of negligence. The appeal challenges the judge’s liability findings against the first and second defendants, with a cross-appeal seeking permission to challenge the exoneration of the mother.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the first and second defendants were liable in negligence or for breach of statutory duty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for the defective child resistant closure (CRC) on the dishwasher powder bottle.
2. Whether the safety of the product fell below the standard persons generally are entitled to expect, constituting a "defect" under section 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
3. Whether the mother was negligent in allowing the Plaintiff access to the bottle.
4. The causation of the Plaintiff's injuries by the alleged defect in the bottle's closure.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The appellants contended that there was no legal requirement for the dishwasher powder to be sold in a container with a CRC, and thus no actionable breach of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 arose despite the cap requiring less torque to open than specified in the British Standard.
• They argued the factual scenario accepted by the judge—that the Plaintiff could reach and open the bottle as described—was impossible given the Plaintiff’s physical capabilities and the bottle’s dimensions.
• The appellants challenged the judge’s acceptance of the mother’s evidence, suggesting that it was not credible and that the accident scenario was unrealistic.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Plaintiff, through counsel, argued that the shortfall in torque required to open the cap compared to the British Standard constituted a defect under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
• It was submitted that the public is entitled to expect that a product will function according to the design standards to which it was manufactured.
• The Plaintiff's counsel contended that it was foreseeable that a child gaining access to the bottle’s contents would suffer injury, even if the precise mechanism of access was not foreseeable.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the facts surrounding the bottle and its child resistant closure (CRC), noting that the cap was easier to open than the British Standard torque specification required, but still offered some resistance. The judge accepted the mother’s evidence as credible, including her testimony that she placed the bottle on the work surface with the cap properly secured, albeit likely nearer the edge than recalled.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiff, a child of about 13 months, would not have opened the bottle by replicating adult methods but would have used squeezing and other manipulations. The judge found the CRC defective because it required less torque than the standard and had "much more play" between cap and screw, allowing easier opening.

Regarding statutory duty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the court considered whether the product was defective in the sense that safety was below what persons generally are entitled to expect. It rejected the argument that the absence of a legal requirement for a CRC meant no defect could exist. Instead, the court held that by electing to fit a CRC, the defendants represented that the product met the standards applicable to CRCs, creating a public expectation of safety.

However, the court ultimately concluded that the public expectation was that the bottle would be more difficult to open than an ordinary screwtop, not necessarily that it would meet the precise British Standard torque measure. Since the bottle was harder to open than a standard screwtop, the court found no breach of the 1987 Act.

The court further analyzed the foreseeability of the injury and causation, finding that although it was foreseeable a child would be injured if gaining access to the contents, the precise means by which the Plaintiff did so was not reasonably foreseeable. The court accepted the mother’s evidence and found no negligence on her part.

The court declined to overturn the trial judge’s factual findings, noting that the judge was entitled to accept the mother’s credible testimony and that the appellants had not shown that the scenario was impossible.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeals of the first and second defendants and DISMISSED the cross-appeal seeking to challenge the mother’s exoneration.

The direct effect of this decision is that neither the first and second defendants nor the mother are liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries. The court found no breach of statutory duty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and no negligence. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory interpretation principles to the facts of this case.