ABSTRACT
This chapter explores how the judgment in the House of Lords regarding Sutradhar v. NERC appears to declare for the time being that consultants are not legally liable in development aid situations “because of the geography, chain of dealings, and supposedly the need to protect the future provision of development aid funds which may become restricted if legal claims arise in respect of services provided” (Michalowska 2004. Bringing aid agencies to account. (https://lawzone.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=110514&d=205&h=207&f=259). Accessed 2 February 2006). Beck (1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press) predicted exactly this kind of outcome due to the “risk society's” “organized irresponsibility”, where attribution of responsibility has become increasingly difficult in complex technological systems.
The case was important not only in the context of arsenic contamination of drinking water in Bangladesh but also as a commentary on the inter-relationships between expertise and funding from the global North and poor recipients in the global South. With the advance of globalization, such relationships are becoming ever more intense and important. This chapter argues that the outcome of Sutradhar v. NERC should not be taken as an indication that international linkages are without legal consequences. On the contrary, the fact that the costs of £380 k for the case were born by the UK's Special Cases Unit in the Legal Services Commission is proof that it is in the public interest to support such multi-party actions and to scrutinize closely all such alleged environmental torts.
