Victims of arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh have won their first victory. The High Court in London confirmed that the British Geological Survey (bgs) has a reasonable case to answer and that the victims have a realistic prospect of success in their pursuit of claims. The court decided that the litigation raised a novel point in law and could not be summarily dismissed at a preliminary hearing. The verdict paves the way for the victims to file a case for compensation.

The judgement is a novel legal action concerning a developing country and is likely to set a precedent. "The ruling defines a responsibility in principle for the consequences of work, including research, funded under bilateral aid programmes,' points out Peter Ravenscroft, principal hydrogeologist, Arcadis Geraghty and Miller International Inc, a uk-based business organisation.

"The judgement would mean that many other aid agencies can now be held responsible for their actions in developing countries,' opines Dipankar Chakraborti, director, School of Environmental Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata. Experts feel that this decision should be used to change the mode of operation of aid agencies and to include review by a third party. The verdict should ensure that consultants working in developing countries apply the same standards as they would in industrialised nations.

It may be recalled that bgs had provided expertise in a well-digging project executed in Bangladesh from 1983 to 1992. The plaintiffs contended that bgs did not test for arsenic in the water of wells. As a result, they unknowingly consumed water contaminated by arsenic over a long period (see: Hoping for relief [2], April 30, 2003). Meanwhile, London-based law firms Leigh, Day and Company and Alexander Harries