Where a claimant does not have a claim under a contract, his next line of argument may be in the tort of negligence. He will need to establish that his opponent owed him a 'duty of care' which has been breached and caused him loss. Generally, while courts are often willing to find that suppliers of goods and services owe a duty of care to consumers who did not enter into a contract with the supplier but have been harmed by it, it is a brave consumer who takes on a major supplier or authority to claim damages. Courts are slow to find that a duty of care exists between the major protagonists, because the extent of the obligations should be set out in the contracts. Damages in a negligence claim can be significantly reduced where the claimant has been guilty of contributory negligence.

There are other hurdles, such as the issue of 'remoteness'-some damages, even though caused by the failure of a system, are too remote from the original cause to require the person responsible for the failed system to be liable. There are also restrictions on the length of time after an event that a contractual or negligence claim can be made.

In sum, lawyers do not expect litigation to arise out of the recent problems at the airport.

Peter Bullock is head of Technology & Services Law, Asia Pacific and a Partner of Masons' International Law firm. He can be contacted at peter.bullock@pinsentmasons.com