0370 270 6000

Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council, High Court, 8 May 2003

20 May 2003
The issues

Arsenic poisoning – Bangladesh – strike out – Summary Judgment.

The facts

The Claimant alleged that he had been poisoned by Arsenic when drinking ground waters near his home in Bangladesh. The NRC received funds from the Overseas Development Agency. One of its departments had reported assessing the hydro-chemical charter of the main Aquifer Units of Central and North Eastern Bangladesh and the possible toxicity of ground water. The Claimant alleged that the report had been prepared negligently. The Defendant argued that the Claimant could not show that the NRC owed him a duty of care because there was insufficient proximity.

The decision

1. This was a novel point in a developing area of law.

2. It was not appropriate to strike out. These cases had to be decided on the facts, which were found at Trial. Proximity as a concept overlapped with the other concepts of harm and fairness, which derived from the relationship of the parties.

Application dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up