Faisal & Anor v Younis (t/a Safa Superstore) & Anor [2018] EWHC 1111 (QB) (10 May 2018)

Faisal & Anor v Younis (t/a Safa Superstore) & Anor [2018] EWHC 1111 (QB) (10 May 2018)

The Recorder was entitled to find that a reasonable shopkeeper should have foreseen the risk of injury from storing caustic soda within reach of children, given the product's dangerous nature and clear warnings. The first defendant owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to take the simple precaution of placing the product out of children's reach. The apportionment of liability and the costs order in favour of the second defendant were within the Recorder's discretion and based on correct legal principles.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1111 (QB)
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 (contribution Proceedings in Personal Injury Claim) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appellate Review of Recorder's Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Foreseeability of Harm, Duty of Care of Retailers, Apportionment of Liability, Costs Orders in Contribution Proceedings
Tort Law Product Liability Personal Injury Civil Procedure Contribution Between Tortfeasors Foreseeability of Harm Duty of Care of Retailers Apportionment of Liability +1 more

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 (contribution Proceedings in Personal Injury Claim) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appellate Review of Recorder's Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in finding the first defendant liable to contribute to the second defendant's liability to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder erred in apportioning liability between the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the Recorder erred in awarding costs to the second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder was entitled to find that a reasonable shopkeeper should have foreseen the risk of injury from storing caustic soda within reach of children, given the product's dangerous nature and clear warnings. The first defendant owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to take the simple precaution of placing the product out of children's reach. The apportionment of liability and the costs order in favour of the second defendant were within the Recorder's discretion and based on correct legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both the substantive appeal and the appeal in relation to costs are dismissed.