By Chris Carter, Managing Solicitor  ·  March 2026  ·  Allergy Claims

You phoned ahead. You asked the question. You were told it was safe. Then you had a reaction.

Most people in that situation spend the weeks afterwards wondering whether it was their fault for not checking again, or whether it was even worth making a complaint, let alone a claim. They doubt themselves. They assume the restaurant must have made an honest mistake.

But on 5 March 2026, magistrates at Brighton Magistrates’ Court showed exactly what that situation really is. A customer with a milk allergy telephoned a takeaway in Bognor Regis, asked whether a dish contained milk, and was told it did not. The case was brought by West Sussex Trading Standards after a test purchase that replicated precisely that scenario. The verdict: guilty of supplying unsafe food. Neither defendant attended court. No ambiguity. No benefit of the doubt. A clear finding that the business failed a customer who had done everything right.

What did the Trading Standards investigation actually uncover?

Trading Standards officers in West Sussex carried out a test purchase — a technique used to gather evidence of food safety failures without relying on a customer’s account after the fact. The officer telephoned a takeaway in Bognor Regis, declared a milk allergy, and specifically asked whether the dish she intended to order contained milk. She was assured it did not. The case was reported by the Sussex Express on 18 March 2026.

The food was purchased and tested. At Brighton Magistrates’ Court on 5 March 2026, magistrates found both the company and its director guilty on two charges: supplying unsafe food under the Food Safety Act 1990, and failing to inform customers that genetically modified oil was used in cooking — a separate legal requirement under the Food Information for Consumers Regulations 2014. Neither defendant attended court.

The dual conviction is significant. This was not a single administrative slip. The prosecution established a pattern of failure around how allergen and food ingredient information was being communicated to customers — or rather, not communicated.

Why does telling them about your allergy change your legal position so completely?

The Food Information for Consumers Regulations 2014 require food businesses to provide accurate allergen information for everything they sell. That obligation exists whether or not the customer asks. But when a customer with an allergy actively declares that allergy and asks a direct question, something important happens legally: the business takes on a specific, evidenced duty of care towards that individual customer.

In civil law terms, this is what lawyers call a “voluntary assumption of responsibility.” When a member of staff says “yes, that dish is fine for you” — knowing you have an allergy — they are making a representation on which you are entitled to rely. If that representation turns out to be wrong, and you suffer a reaction as a result, the business is liable for the consequences.

You declared your allergy. They told you it was safe. You ate it in good faith. The chain of liability runs directly from their answer to your reaction. That is the clearest possible foundation for a claim.

What are the legal duties on a food business when you tell them about an allergy?

Under the Food Information for Consumers Regulations 2014, food businesses must be able to provide accurate information about all 14 major allergens — including milk — for every dish they sell. This applies to restaurants, takeaways, cafés, and any other food outlet serving non-prepacked food.

That duty does not just mean having an allergen matrix somewhere in a drawer. It means that when a customer asks, the answer given must be correct. Staff must be properly trained. The information must be up to date. If a dish is prepared with an ingredient that contains milk — ghee, cream, yoghurt, buttermilk, or any milk derivative — that must be accurately communicated.

In Indian cuisine, dairy ingredients appear in many dishes that customers might not immediately expect. Ghee (clarified butter) is widely used in curries and rice dishes. Cream is common in korma and masala sauces. Yoghurt is used as a marinade and a sauce base. The obligation to disclose this accurately falls entirely on the food business — not on the customer to guess.

What should you do if you’ve had a reaction after declaring your allergy?

The steps you take in the days after a reaction can make a significant difference to your claim. Here is what I advise:

Seek medical attention and keep a record of your symptoms. A GP visit, an A&E record, or even a pharmacist’s note provides contemporaneous medical evidence. You do not need to have been hospitalised to have a valid claim, but medical evidence helps establish the severity and timeline of your reaction.

Write down exactly what you remember. Who you spoke to. What you were told. When you ordered and when your symptoms started. Do this as soon as possible — memories fade, and a written account created shortly after the event carries more evidential weight than a reconstruction months later.

Do not contact the restaurant to complain before speaking to a solicitor. Any response the business gives — or any admission in writing — can be relevant evidence. How they handle a complaint also tells a solicitor a great deal about how defensible their position actually is.

Contact us. An initial call costs you nothing. We will tell you within minutes whether you have a case worth pursuing — and we will not take it on unless we believe you do.

How long do you have to make a claim?

Under the Limitation Act 1980, you have three years from the date of your allergic reaction to bring a claim for personal injury compensation. For most people, that feels like a long time — but the sooner you act, the better. Evidence is easier to gather, memories are clearer, and the business’s own records are more likely to be intact.

If your reaction happened years ago, speak to us before assuming it is too late. There are circumstances in which the three-year period runs from a later date — for example, if you only became fully aware of the nature and cause of your injury some time after the event.

What compensation might you be entitled to claim?

Compensation for an allergic reaction depends on the severity of your reaction and the impact it has had on your life. Straightforward claims for a reaction causing temporary illness, distress, and some missed work or activity can settle relatively quickly — often within two to six months for a case with clear liability.

More serious reactions — those involving anaphylaxis, hospital admission, or lasting anxiety about eating out — are assessed individually. The Judicial College Guidelines provide a framework for valuing pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, and your solicitor will also claim for any financial losses: medical expenses, travel costs, lost earnings, and anything else directly caused by the reaction.

Every case is different. The only way to get a realistic picture of what your claim might be worth is to speak to a solicitor who handles allergy claims regularly — not a general personal injury firm that handles them occasionally.