Podcast connection prepared
The episode page, player position and subscription controls are ready. The RSS feed and platform links will be activated as soon as the final feed is supplied.
Learning outcomes
What you will learn
- 01
Explain the difference between CPA 1987 no-fault liability and negligence-based fault liability.
- 02
State the CPA defect test and the claimant's continuing burden to prove defect and causation.
- 03
Identify the principal statutory defences and limits on recoverable property damage.
- 04
Use Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics as a modern authority on entitled safety expectations.
Lightbulb Law Briefing Note
The episode, distilled.
The brief
The two regimes ask different questions. Negligence focuses on the producer's conduct: was reasonable care taken? Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 imposes no-fault liability where damage is caused by a defect in a product and the defendant falls within the statutory scheme.
Strict liability does not mean automatic liability
The claimant does not need to prove negligence, but still bears the burden of establishing a defect, causation and qualifying damage. Under s.3, a product is defective if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect, assessed objectively in all the circumstances.
Hastings: entitled expectation, not hindsight
The Supreme Court in Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics confirmed that the defect test is objective and concerned with the safety the public is entitled to expect. The assessment is made by reference to all relevant circumstances and the time of supply; a product is not defective merely because a safer product later exists.
The statutory defences matter
Section 4 includes defences such as compliance with an enactment, non-supply, the defect not existing at the relevant time, the development-risks defence and the component-producer defence. These should be analysed precisely rather than replaced by a general list of negligence-style defences.
Damage under s.5 is limited
Personal injury and death fall within the scheme. Property damage is subject to statutory restrictions: the damaged property must be of a description ordinarily intended for private use and intended mainly for the claimant's private use, and the recoverable property damage must exceed the £275 threshold. Damage to the defective product itself is excluded.
Run the regimes separately
A claimant may plead both routes where the facts permit. A careful producer may still face CPA liability if the product is defective and no defence applies; conversely, the CPA claim may fail while a negligence claim turns on proof of unreasonable conduct.
The framework
Key points
CPA liability under Part I is no-fault, not no-proof.
The s.3 defect test asks whether safety fell below what persons generally were entitled to expect.
The claimant bears the burden of proving defect and causation.
Negligence asks whether the defendant failed to take reasonable care and caused recoverable loss.
Section 4 contains specific statutory defences; s.5 limits qualifying property damage.
The CPA and negligence can operate in parallel.
Authorities
Key cases
Legislation & rules
Key statutory material
Flip the cards
Retrieve, do not just reread.
Try to answer each prompt before revealing the back of the card.
Quick Check
Test the connection.
Question 1
A manufacturer used every reasonable quality-control process, but a product is nevertheless proved defective and causes injury. Which statement is best?
Question 2
Who bears the burden of proving defect under the CPA?
Question 3
Which statement accurately describes property damage under CPA s.5?
Question 4
What did Hastings emphasise about defect?
Your Lightbulb Law Moment
Notice what has just clicked.
Strict liability removes the need to prove fault; it does not remove the need to prove a defective product caused qualifying damage. That distinction prevents 'strict' from being mistaken for 'automatic'.
Pause before moving on.
A medical device carries a small known risk that cannot be eliminated without losing an important clinical benefit. What facts would matter to the CPA defect analysis, and what different facts would matter to negligence?
Downloadable support
Useful on paper, not designed as a content dump.
Selected printable companions use the restrained Lightbulb Law house style, with Times New Roman, black-and-white layouts and generous space for annotation.
Accuracy note
Current-law companion reviewed against Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part I, Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd [2022] UKSC 19 and the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 on 17 September 2026. The 2025 Act does not repeal Part I through s.11(1); that subsection concerns Parts II and IV and is subject to separate commencement.