Faisal & Anor v Younis (t/a Safa Superstore) & Anor

Faisal & Anor v Younis (t/a Safa Superstore) & Anor

The Recorder was entitled to find that the first defendant owed a duty of care to the claimants, breached that duty by failing to store caustic soda out of reach of children, and was jointly liable with the second defendant; the second defendant was the successful party in contribution proceedings and entitled to costs.

Parties
Claimant: Saira Faisal; Claimant: Ayman Faisal; 1st Defendant/appellant: Mr Younis t/a Safa Superstore; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Active Brands Concept Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Apportionment of Liability and Costs Order in Contribution Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Breach of Duty, Costs in Contribution Proceedings
Tort Personal Injury Product Liability Apportionment of Liability Duty of Care Foreseeability Breach of Duty Costs in Contribution Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saira Faisal

Claimant

Ayman Faisal

Claimant

Mr Younis t/a Safa Superstore

1st Defendant/appellant

Active Brands Concept Ltd

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Apportionment of Liability and Costs Order in Contribution Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant was liable to contribute to the claimants' claims
  2. 2 Whether the accident was foreseeable to the first defendant
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant breached duty of care by storing caustic soda on a lower shelf

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder was entitled to find that the first defendant owed a duty of care to the claimants, breached that duty by failing to store caustic soda out of reach of children, and was jointly liable with the second defendant; the second defendant was the successful party in contribution proceedings and entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both substantive appeal and costs appeal dismissed
  • First defendant to pay second defendant's costs of contribution proceedings