scholarly journals Transnational Corporate Liability for Environmental Damage and Climate Change: Reassessing Access to Justice after Vedanta v. Lungowe

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-345
Author(s):  
Samvel Varvastian ◽  
Felicity Kalunga
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Foreign Subsidiaries ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Global Presence ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Parent Companies

AbstractOn 10 April 2019 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered judgment in the case of Vedanta v. Lungowe, which concerned the liability of an English company for environmental damage caused by its subsidiary in Zambia. The decision confirms that English parent companies can owe a duty of care to foreign claimants affected by operations of their subsidiaries abroad and that the English courts may have jurisdiction to hear such cases, even when a foreign court is a more appropriate place for the trial. It establishes an important precedent for providing access to justice for foreign claimants in transnational corporate liability litigation. Given the global presence of English companies and the fact that their foreign subsidiaries have been involved in multiple cases of environmental damage in the host states, the decision could give an impetus to future claims being brought in the English courts. Also, the decision opens some interesting possibilities for climate change liability litigation against English parent companies and their foreign subsidiaries, as their cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be considerably higher than when taken separately, arguably making prospective claims against them more viable.

Group Companies and Climate Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Benjamin
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Global South ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Corporate Group ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Global North ◽  
Group Structures ◽  
Parent Companies

Abstract A string of corporate litigation cases in the United Kingdom highlights the role of corporate group structures in complicating efforts to impose liability on parent companies for the activities of their subsidiaries, particularly where those subsidiaries are located in the Global South. Corporate group structures serve to insulate parent companies against liability for actions of their subsidiaries. This is the case even where economic benefits accrue to parent companies, which are often incorporated in the Global North. These group structures cabin liability for environmental and climate harms within subsidiary companies through reliance on company law principles such as limited liability and separate legal personality. These company law principles allow parent companies to enjoy corporate profits from the activities of their subsidiaries but disavow liability for any environmental damage resulting from such activities. This dichotomy has obvious equity implications, which are exacerbated in the extractive industries and in the context of climate change. Negative climate impacts are and will be felt predominantly in the Global South. In addition, environmental damage removes avenues of climate adaptation for vulnerable populations. But company law principles are not impervious to these equity challenges. These principles have never been absolute and courts have consistently found exceptions to them, although those exceptions have fluctuated in effectiveness and frequency over the years. Recent decisions by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the United Kingdom imposed duties on parent companies for environmental damage caused by their subsidiaries. Cases following the decision in Chandler v Cape Industries illustrate tension between company law as interpreted in the Global North, and climate and environmental justice as experienced in the Global South. Climate change forces a reconceptualization of company law, including transnational corporate liability. This paper argues that these reconsiderations are not only appropriate, but given the contested histories of many of these companies in the Global South, long overdue.

Corporate Liability for Toxic Torts Abroad: Vedanta v Lungowe in the Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie Bradshaw
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Proper Place ◽  
Corporate Groups ◽  
Legal Control ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
And Control ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Parent Companies

Abstract Multinational corporate groups pose a challenge to traditional methods of legal control, particularly when corporations domiciled in wealthy western countries exploit, through foreign-domiciled subsidiaries, the resources and ‘weak governance’ of the developing world. In holding England as the proper place in which to bring a claim against both a UK-domiciled company and its Zambian subsidiary, for environmental damage abroad, the Supreme Court has allegedly ‘opened the door’ to similar future actions. However, in the absence of robust and mandatory due diligence requirements, parent companies may simply retreat from comprehensively reporting on group-wide systems of management and control. A desire to avoid future ‘voluntary assumptions of responsibility’ may be the undoing of post-Vedanta optimism.

Foreign Direct Liability Claims in Sweden: Learning from Arica Victims KB v. Boliden Mineral AB?

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 404-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasmus Kløcker Larsen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Court Action ◽  
Environmental Damages ◽  
Liability Claims ◽  
Parent Companies

On 12 September 2013 what may be the first foreign direct liability claim in Sweden was filed in the County Court of Skellefteå, a court action reflective of a growing wave of civil liability suits in European jurisdictions to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights violations and environmental damages. This article examines the feasibility of foreign direct liability claims in Sweden, focusing on enabling conditions with regards to jurisdiction, collision rules and applicable law, substantial legal basis, procedural and practical circumstances, and the theories by which parent companies can be held liable for negligence in supervising acts of subsidiaries and contractors. It is demonstrated that foreign direct liability claims on environmental damage are indeed possible in Sweden, albeit with considerable constraints, primarily of a procedural and financial character. The conclusion provides some cautious remarks on the merits of the claim against Boliden and the reform options available to a Swedish government committed to improving the access to justice for victims of violations perpetuated by Swedish companies, their subsidiaries and contractors.

scholarly journals Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v. Lungowe and Others

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-116
Author(s):  
Tara Van Ho
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Copper Mines ◽  
Public Disclosures ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Parent Companies ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

In Vedanta v. Lungowe, the United Kingdom Supreme Court determined that civil claims for negligence brought by Zambian claimants against an English parent company (Vedanta) and its Zambian subsidiary (Konkola Copper Mines plc (KCM)) for damages experienced in Zambia can proceed in English courts. While framed as a domestic tort law case, the decision is significant for international efforts aimed at holding businesses accountable for their “negative impacts” on human rights. Writing for a unanimous Court, Lord Briggs's judgment hinged narrowly on the right of victims to access substantial justice. More broadly, Lord Briggs suggested that parent companies that hold themselves out in public disclosures as overseeing the human rights, environmental, social, or labor standards employed by their subsidiaries assume a duty of care to those harmed by the subsidiary. This suggestion has the potential to transform current corporate approaches to human rights due diligence and accountability.

Achieving Access to Justice in a Business and Human Rights Context

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginie Rouas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Parent Companies

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) can contribute to economic prosperity and social development in the countries where they operate. At the same time, their activities may directly or indirectly cause harm to humans and to the environment. However, MNEs are rarely held accountable for their involvement in human rights abuses and environmental damage. In recent years, activists have challenged corporate impunity by introducing innovative claims seeking to hold parent companies directly liable for the harm caused by their group’s activities. They have also strategically used this type of litigation to trigger corporate accountability reforms at international, regional, and national levels. Using national litigation experiences as a starting point and focusing on European civil-law countries, the book evaluates the extent to which litigation against MNEs has been effective in achieving access to justice and corporate accountability. It also considers whether ongoing regulatory developments, such as the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence norms and the negotiations for a business and human rights treaty, can contribute to the realisation of access to justice and corporate accountability in the future.

The Changing Legal Landscape

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 217-223
Author(s):  
Brenda Hale
Keyword(s):  
Memorial Lecture ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The University ◽  
Law Library

AbstractThe Willi Steiner Memorial Lecture 2019 was delivered at the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians’ Annual Conference by Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond, DBE,1 the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Lady Hale reflected upon some of the major changes in the law and access to justice since she was an undergraduate at the University of Cambridge and Willi Steiner was Law Librarian at the Squire Law Library. Her lecture coincided with BIALL's fiftieth anniversary year and focused on five significant developments: the explosion of judicial review of administrative action, the arrival of EU law, the growth of international human rights law, the recognition of gender and other equality, and devolution and the evolution of a new constitutional role for the courts.

The Future of Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations in the English Courts: Is Forum [Non] Conveniens Back?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Ekaterina ARISTOVA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Tort Litigation ◽  
Parent Companies

Abstract This article examines private international law issues raised by civil liability cases commenced in the courts of home states against transnational corporations concerning their alleged involvement in the overseas human rights violations. These claims have been particularly successful in the United Kingdom, where in the last several years the framework of Brussels I Regulation (recast) and English common law rules made it appropriate for the English courts to assert jurisdiction over corporate defendants without the possibility of subjecting claims against the parent companies to forum non conveniens control. In 2019, however, the Supreme Court in a high-profile case Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc expressed doubts as to whether England should always constitute a proper forum for litigating overseas wrongs arising from the operations of British multinationals. The article aims to assess how the search of the most appropriate forum to litigate the dispute might impact victims of business-related human rights abuses in the post-Brexit environment and propose avenues for legal change.

Multinational Human Rights Litigation in the UK: A Retrospective

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Richard MEERAN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Tort Litigation ◽  
Concurrent Development ◽  
Key Features ◽  
The Uk

Abstract This article provides an overview of the key features of multinational human rights litigation in the United Kingdom, including the development of a tort-based parent company duty of care, the principles relating to forum non conveniens and applicable law and other key procedural and practical barriers to victims’ access to justice. The article highlights some of the actual and perceived limitations of litigation. It also considers the concurrent development of and mutually reinforcing relationship between MNC tort litigation and the field of Business & Human Rights.

Search for Principle - The Government's Liability in Negligence for the Careless Exercise of its Statutory Powers

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 629
Author(s):  
Thomas Geuther
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
High Court Of Australia

For many years the English courts have struggled to develop a principled approach for determining when a public authority can owe a duty of care in respect of the exercise of its statutory powers. Initially, public authorities received no special treatment. Then the courts conferred an almost complete immunity on them, requiring public law irrationality to be established before considering whether a duty could arise. The English approach has not been adopted elsewhere in the Commonwealth. The High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Canada have developed different tests, and the New Zealand courts, while never explicitly rejecting the English position, have never followed it. This paper argues that a modified version of the Canadian Supreme Court's approach should be adopted in New Zealand. It proposes that irrationality be a precondition to the existence of a duty of care only where policy considerations are proved to have influenced the decisions of a public authority in exercising its statutory powers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document