Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council

Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council

The majority held that the relationship between the defendant and the claimant was too remote to give rise to a duty of care. The defendant did not create the hazard, had no control or responsibility for water supply, and the class of potential claimants was too wide and indeterminate. Imposing a duty would not be an incremental development but a 'mighty leap' in negligence law. The claim was bound to fail and should be struck out.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Binod Sutradhar; Respondent/defendant: Natural Environment Research Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action struck out.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Proximity, Personal Injury, Negligent Misstatement, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Proximity Personal Injury Negligent Misstatement Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Binod Sutradhar

Appellant/claimant

Natural Environment Research Council

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant and the class he represents for personal injuries caused by arsenic in water, based on the preparation and dissemination of a hydrochemical report.
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between the parties was sufficiently proximate to give rise to a duty of care.
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out or dismissed summarily as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the relationship between the defendant and the claimant was too remote to give rise to a duty of care. The defendant did not create the hazard, had no control or responsibility for water supply, and the class of potential claimants was too wide and indeterminate. Imposing a duty would not be an incremental development but a 'mighty leap' in negligence law. The claim was bound to fail and should be struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action struck out.

Orders

  • The action is struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and/or no real prospect of success.