header-logo header-logo

Who’s liable?

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll