header-logo header-logo

08 November 2018 / Nicole Finlayson , Charlotte Hill
Issue: 7816 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Who’s liable?

Two out of three: the Court of Appeal rules in favour of a multinational parent company…again. Nicole Finlayson & Charlotte Hill report

The Court of Appeal has recently ruled for the second time—in AAA & others v Unilever Plc and Unilever Tea Kenya Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1532 that an English multinational parent company cannot be held liable for acts of its foreign-registered subsidiary.

This is the third judgment handed down in the past 12 months on this subject, with two out of the three sets of claimants failing to convince the Court of Appeal either that a duty of care should be imposed on the parent company, or that (consequently) the English courts should have jurisdiction. In each case ( Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1528 ; Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 191; and now Unilever ), the Court of Appeal carried out a detailed examination of the factual evidence including, critically, the degree of control that the parent company had over the acts and omissions of its

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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll