Credico Marketing Limited & Anor. v Benjamin Gregory Lambert & Anor.
[2023] EWCA Civ 262
Vadim Don Benyatov v Credit Suisse (Securities) Europe Ltd
17 February 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 140
Court of Appeal
A banker sued his employer after a wrongful conviction in Romania prevented him from working. He lost because the court said the employer wasn't responsible for the actions of the Romanian courts, and his claim was too late.
Key Facts
- •Vadim Don Benyatov (Claimant/Appellant) was a Credit Suisse (Respondent/Defendant) employee arrested in Romania in 2006 on suspicion of criminal wrongdoing related to an electricity company privatization.
- •He was eventually convicted in Romania, which significantly hampered his ability to work as a regulated financial professional.
- •Benyatov maintained his innocence and appealed, ultimately having his conviction overturned on appeal but with a substituted conviction for a lesser charge.
- •He sued Credit Suisse for loss of earnings, alleging both negligence and breach of implied contractual indemnity.
- •The High Court dismissed the claim in its entirety.
- •Benyatov appealed the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Duty of care in novel negligence claims is determined incrementally and by analogy with established authority, considering foreseeability, proximity, and fairness.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4
Assumption of responsibility is a sufficient but not necessary condition for liability in negligence, and its usefulness depends on the specific circumstances.
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28
An employer's duty of care to an employee does not extend to protecting their purely economic interests arising from threats to their safety, unless specific circumstances warrant a duty to protect financial interests.
Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd [2020] EWHC 901 (QB)
A cause of action in negligence arises when the claimant suffers actual damage, and the claim is time-barred if damage occurred outside the limitation period.
Hatton v Chafes [2003] EWCA Civ 341
Implied terms in contracts are judged based on necessity, reasonableness, and fairness, considering the circumstances at the time of the contract's creation.
Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed Benyatov's negligence claim.
The judge's finding that the harm was not reasonably foreseeable was upheld. The Court also found the negligence claim was time-barred due to damages incurred outside the limitation period.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Benyatov's contractual indemnity claim.
The Court found no legal basis to imply a general indemnity covering all losses resulting from employment, including those caused by third parties without employer fault. The Court held that implying such a broad indemnity would undermine existing legal frameworks for employer liability.