header-logo header-logo

Parents know best?

29 June 2012 / Malcolm Dowden
Issue: 7520 / Categories: Features , Company
printer mail-detail
96588636_fmt_4

Malcolm Dowden considers the liability of a parent company

A parent company is not responsible for acts or omissions of its subsidiary simply by virtue of its status as parent. However, a parent company can be fixed with liability if its knowledge of, and ability to, intervene in the affairs of the subsidiary are sufficient to create a duty of care towards any person suffering damage or injury due to the subsidiary’s acts or omissions. Crucially, if a parent company has “superior knowledge” about the nature and management of particular risks, and is aware of a “systemic failure” on the part of its subsidiary, then the court may be willing to find a duty of care. It is more likely to do so if the subsidiary has been dissolved, has limited financial strength, and/or does not have insurance cover in relation to the relevant type of damage or injury.

Duty of care test

Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 established a three stage test to establish a duty

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quillon Law—Neil Dooley

Quillon Law—Neil Dooley

Disputes firm expands fraud and investigations practice with partner hire

Charles Russell Speechlys—Vadim Romanoff

Charles Russell Speechlys—Vadim Romanoff

Firm strengthens corporate tax and incentives team with partner hire

Burges Salmon—Gary Delderfield & Alec Bennett

Burges Salmon—Gary Delderfield & Alec Bennett

Partner and senior associate join pensions team

NEWS
In this week's NLJ, Sophie Houghton of LexisPSL distils the key lesson from recent costs cases: if you want to exceed guideline hourly rates (GHR), you must prove why
With chronic underfunding and rising demand leaving thousands without legal help, technology could transform access to justice—if handled wisely, writes Professor Sue Prince of the University of Exeter in this week's NLJ
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
back-to-top-scroll