We respectfully submit that the Supreme Court should consider the UK’s obligations under international law when considering whether to grant this application for leave to appeal...

Laing J found at first instance that ‘there is cogent evidence… that the Cs [Claimants] will not get substantial justice in Kenya’ and face a real risk of ‘violence and intimidation’ in their home jurisdiction. Notwithstanding these findings, the Court of Appeal held that any trial should take place in Kenya. As submitted by the Appellants in their application for leave to appeal, these UK proceedings represent ‘the only potential avenue for legal remedy...

The dismissal of the case prior to a full hearing hinders the Appellants’ ability to obtain justice and reparation...

The Court of Appeal’s decision also has the potential to erode the right to remedy for other victims of human rights abuses...

This case offers an important opportunity for UK courts to engage on the issue of parent company liability for acts and omissions of their foreign subsidiaries, and the ability of victims to obtain redress for human rights violations suffered as a result. We submit that the Supreme Court should take the opportunity to grant permission to appeal, reach a determination on the issues in dispute, and thus enable the possibility of a full examination of the issues and evidence at trial...