Implant victims may lose compensation

French court ruling could see British women being told to repay interim payments of £2,500

DOZENS of British victims of the PIP breast implant scandal could be forced to pay back compensation awarded to them following a French court ruling.

Around 100 British women who suffered health problems after the implants leaked industrial-grade silicon were awarded interim payments of £2,500 each two years ago.

But a French court of appeal yesterday ruled that the German producttesting firm they sued was not liable for the faulty products. It overturns a decision by a lower court, in 2013, which ordered TUV Rheinland and its French subsidiary to pay millions of euros in compensation.

Jan Spivey, one of the British women who sued TUV, said the latest ruling was “a total shock”. Ms Spivey, 53, from south-west London, said: “There is no way I’m going to pay any of the money back. They will have to lock me up first. It’s so cruel to put this pressure on us after what we’ve been through.”

The British plaintiffs were among almost 1,600 women, most of them from South America, who sued the firm for a total of €16,000 (£13,400) each.

However, the French appeal court, in the southern city of Toulon, ruled that TUV had “fulfilled the obligations incumbent upon it”. The firm had certified that the implants, made by French firm Poly Implant Prothese (PIP), conformed to safety rules – even though they were subsequently found to contain substandard, industrial silicone gel.

The women’s French lawyers sued TUV after PIP’s owner was sentenced to prison and his bankrupt company could not pay damages.

The German firm maintained it was never its job to check the actual implants, only to inspect the manufacturing process. A source close to TUV said: “They will technically have to pay back this money but no decision has been taken on a request for reimbursement.”

Ms Spivey, of the PIP Action Campaign, received the implants as part of reconstructive surgery following breast cancer but, like many of the women, still suffers from severe health problems — despite their removal.

She added: “My surgeon would never have performed life-saving surgery on me and then put in an implant without relying on the CE safety mark ( gained thanks to TUV approval). Yet the only person to be held accountable so far is the 75-year-old owner of the PIP factory who was criminally convicted for fraud… but is still not in jail.”

Ms Spivey said the women would appeal against the ruling.