Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd (Rev1) [2021] EWCA Civ 326 (10 March 2021)

Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd (Rev1) [2021] EWCA Civ 326 (10 March 2021)

The claim should not be struck out or summarily dismissed because, on the assumed facts, the existence of a duty of care under the 'creation of danger' exception is arguable and not fanciful, and the limitation issues under Rome II Articles 7 and 26 are also arguable and should be determined at trial.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 326
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Hamida Begum (on behalf of Md Khalil Mollah); Appellant/defendant: Maran (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Refusal of Summary Judgment and Strike Out in High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; claim may proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Third Party Liability, Limitation Periods, Rome II Regulation, Environmental Damage
Tort Law Private International Law Conflict of Laws Negligence Duty of Care Third Party Liability Limitation Periods Rome II Regulation +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamida Begum (on behalf of Md Khalil Mollah)

Claimant/respondent

Maran (UK) Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Refusal of Summary Judgment and Strike Out in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased under English tort law for injuries sustained in Bangladesh
  2. 2 Whether the claim is statute-barred under Bangladeshi law or whether English law applies via Rome II Article 7 (environmental damage) or Article 26 (public policy)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim should not be struck out or summarily dismissed because, on the assumed facts, the existence of a duty of care under the 'creation of danger' exception is arguable and not fanciful, and the limitation issues under Rome II Articles 7 and 26 are also arguable and should be determined at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; claim may proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Refusal to strike out the claim or grant summary judgment for the defendant is upheld.
  • Limitation and choice of law issues to be determined at trial.