Intended for healthcare professionals

News

Legal suit over Norplant collapses

BMJ 1999; 318 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7182.485b (Published 20 February 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;318:485
  1. Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
  1. BMJ

    A compensation claim by 275 British women over alleged side effects of the contraceptive implant Norplant has collapsed after the Legal Aid Board withdrew funding.

    The claim against Hoechst Marion Roussel, the UK distributors of Norplant, had been due to go to trial in the High Court on 1 February. It would have been the first attempt under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to put a prescription only medicine on trial as a defective product.

    The implant was alleged to have caused a range of problems, including lengthy periods, acne, hair loss, mood swings, migraines, blurred vision, and difficulties in removal.

    But the board refused further funding for the 180 women receiving legal aid, after deciding that the chances of success did not justify the high cost of a trial, given the small size of the individual claims. After the decision, the rest of the women, who were funding their cases themselves, decided to withdraw their claims.

    The collapse of the case raised questions about the English courts' ability to deal with smaller, multiparty actions. Paul Balen, the solicitor coordinating the claims, said: “Once again the English court system has proved itself unable to handle a series of small value product liability claims quickly and cheaply.”

    Log in

    Log in through your institution

    Subscribe

    * For online subscription