3.4 Sub-conclusion
Under English tort law, a remedy based on a duty of care exists. The duty requires a relationship of proximity, that the damage is reasonably foreseeable and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty. The general rule under English law is that no liability applies attached to omissions, except for certain situations, such as when there is a special relationship, control or a third party exploits the danger created.
The duty of care was used in Hamida v Begum. The case was only decided on factual assumptions, as the Defendant had filed a notice to strike out the claim. However, the Court held that the Claimants had a real prospect of succeeding with their claim and thus dismissed the notice. In doing so, the Courts held that the Claimants had a realistic claim as regards establishing that the Defendant owed a duty of care based on the danger it had created by knowingly selling the Vessel at the given price with a low amount of fuel which was exploited by a third party. Thus, the Defendant ought reasonably to have foreseen this risk of damage and thus owed a duty of care vis-à-vis the Deceased.