The Daily Star	May 2003
       

      A verdict in favour of arsenic patients



      Staff Correspondent


      British lawyers fighting for Bangladeshi arsenic patients won a judgement 
      on Thursday, which paves the way for running a lawsuit against the British 
      Geological Survey (BGS). 

      "The judgement removes all obstruction to the next steps of the case we 
      are seeking on behalf of Bangladeshi arsenic patients," said Sharmin 
      Murshid, chairperson of Brotee, an NGO that took the issue to the 
      Bangladesh Arsenic Action Network (BIAN) in London about two years ago.
      Claimants of the lawsuit say the BGS neglected tests for arsenic when it 
      carried out water tests in Bangladesh in 1992. 

      The BIAN that pursued the fight for the last six months has won the 
      judgement in favour of running the case in the British High Court, said a 
      press release yesterday. 

      Thursday's judgement dismissed the BGS's application to strike out the 
      claim by victims of arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh. The BGS now has to 
      answer why it failed to carry out the arsenic tests. 

      Leigh Day and Co and Alexander Harris represent approximately 750 
      Bangladeshi villagers suffering from arsenic poisoning, who claim that the 
      BGS, part of the Natural Environment Research Council, was negligent in 
      carrying out arsenic tests during its 1992 survey on toxicity of 
      Bangladeshi well-water. 

      If the BGS had carried out necessary tests, it would have identified high 
      levels of arsenic contamination in the water. Instead, it gave the water a 
      clean bill of health and the claimants continued drinking the water that 
      was highly contaminated for five to six years before the first arsenic 
      victims were diagnosed, according to the claim. 

      The defendants argue that they did not owe a duty of care to the victims, 
      and the case should not proceed to trial. 

      But the judge concluded that the case raises a novel point in the 
      developing area of law on the reliance of technical reports and that there 
      is a case for the defendants to answer, which should be decided at a full 
      trial.