Question 1 of 10

Ruth purchased an own brand cafetiere from AZTEC supermarket (“AZTEC”) . When using it for the first time she pushed the plunger down and the glass of the cafetiere shattered. Boiling hot coffee spilled out, burning Ruth’s legs and shards of glass cut her feet. Ruth decided to bring a claim for personal injury against AZTEC. Ruth is a wealthy farmer and has plenty of money to fund proceedings. She followed the relevant pre-action protocol and eventually issued proceedings against AZTEC.AZTEC made an application for summary judgment. It based the application on its expert evidence (obtained during the pre-action stage). Its expert tested the glass of the cafetiere and concluded that it was safe and withstood appropriate temperatures. Accordingly, AZTEC were of the view that Ruth had filled the product with water straight from the kettle, contrary to the instructions which caution users to wait a few minutes for the temperature to drop. Ruth maintained that she had used it properly. The Judge hearing the case formed the view that it was possible that the claim may succeed when the court eventually hears evidence about what Ruth did on the day in question but that, based on the expert evidence, it was improbable that it would.What is the most likely order the court will make in relation to AZTEC’s application for summary judgment?