Split Trial was a Mistake

Worsley v Tambrands Ltd (CA TLR 11 February)

A claim for injury as a result of contracting toxic shock syndrome while using the defendant’s tampons was in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under ss2 and 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in manufacturing and/or producing defective products and of failing to issue sufficient warnings as to the dangers inherent in their use. Damages were agreed but liability was very much in issue. The judge had been wrong to direct that the issue of the adequacy of warnings on the packaging should be tried first as a preliminary issue. The issues as to causation and the adequacy of warnings were inextricably bound together. The evidence on those issues could not be separated. Any savings in time and costs in following the course the judge ordered would be minimal and her purpose in making the order could not be achieved. The court would not interfere with a judge’s decision to order determination of a preliminary point unless the judge was plainly wrong. In this case, for the best possible reasons, the judge was plainly wrong.