Vadim Don Benyatov v Credit Suisse (Securities) Europe Ltd

Vadim Don Benyatov v Credit Suisse (Securities) Europe Ltd

There is no implied contractual indemnity obliging an employer to compensate an employee for loss of earnings caused by acts of third parties without fault. The pleaded duty of care was not established as the risks were not reasonably foreseeable, and Romania was not a high-risk jurisdiction. The negligence claim is statute-barred as loss was suffered outside the limitation period.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Vadim Don Benyatov; Respondent/defendant: Credit Suisse (Securities) Europe Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Duty of Care, Employer Liability, Indemnity, Limitation of Actions
Employment Law Contract Law Tort Law Implied Terms Duty of Care Employer Liability Indemnity Limitation of Actions

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vadim Don Benyatov

Appellant/claimant

Credit Suisse (Securities) Europe Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employer owes an implied contractual indemnity for loss of earnings caused by acts of third parties without fault
  2. 2 Whether an employer owes a duty of care to protect an employee from criminal conviction and resulting losses in high-risk jurisdictions
  3. 3 Whether the claim in negligence is statute-barred

Ratio Decidendi

There is no implied contractual indemnity obliging an employer to compensate an employee for loss of earnings caused by acts of third parties without fault. The pleaded duty of care was not established as the risks were not reasonably foreseeable, and Romania was not a high-risk jurisdiction. The negligence claim is statute-barred as loss was suffered outside the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Negligence claim dismissed
  • Contractual indemnity claim dismissed