header-logo header-logo

19 February 2020
Issue: 7875 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No liability for Tonkalili

A group of 142 claimants from Sierra Leone has lost its Court of Appeal case against a UK-based mining company for events the trial judge described as ‘violent chaos during the course of which many villagers were variously beaten, shot, gassed, robbed, sexually assaulted, squalidly incarcerated and, in one case, killed’

The claimants live in Tonkolili and the defendants were previously the owners and operators of a large iron ore mine in the district, Tonkolili Iron Ore (formerly a subsidiary of African Minerals). The violence occurred in 2010 and 2012 when the mining company took over a number of villages, and the villagers’ protests were met with excessive force by the Sierra Leone Police.

The claimants argued Tonkolili was liable for the actions of the police, which they denied. They had seven grounds of action, including: vicarious liability for torts committed both by company employees and police; accessory liability, given the company supplied the police with money, vehicles and accommodation during the 2012 incident; malicious prosecution; and breach of a non-delegable duty in respect of an extra hazardous activity carried out negligently.

During the High Court hearing in 2018, Mr Justice Turner and the legal teams for both sides travelled to Sierra Leone so the judge could take evidence from witnesses in person―the first time a High Court hearing has done so.

The mining company’s argument included that there is no liability in negligence for the criminal acts of third parties, and that in order to establish tortious liability for common design, something more was needed than the foreseeability that the police might over-react.

Ruling in Kalma v African Minerals [2020] EWCA Civ 144, the court dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

Martyn Day, senior partner, Leigh Day, representing the claimants, said his clients were disappointed and would be seeking leave to appeal.

Issue: 7875 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll