Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2006] UKHL 33

Written By Nicolas Heyes

Court: House of Lords

Basic Facts: NERC tested water supplies in Bangladesh but did not test for arsenic. S, affected by arsenic in water, claimed negligence.

Issue: Is there a duty of care in this situation?

Held: case dismissed. As the councils mandate did not include arsenic testing and had nothing to do with creating the water supply, it owed no duty of care to anyone regarding whether the water was harmful

    • Lord Hoffmann: BGS had no positive duty to test for arsenic and was not responsible for the universal safety of the water. The report's potential misleading effect was not foreseeable. The proximity between BGS and the Bangladeshi population was insufficient to establish a duty of care.

Nicolas Heyes
Previous

Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] 2 AC 343
Next

Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923