abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Cette page n’est pas disponible en Français et est affichée en English

Procès

1 Jan 1997

Auteur:
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Cape/Gencor lawsuits (re So. Africa)

Statut : CLOSED

Date de dépôt de la plainte
1 Jan 1997
Inconnu
Travailleurs
Lieu de dépôt de la plainte: Royaume-Uni
Lieu de l'incident: Afrique du Sud
Type de litige: Transnational

Entreprises

Sources

Snapshot: In 1997, five South Africans suffering from asbestos-related disease sued Cape PLC in UK Court seeking compensation for their injuries caused by Cape's asbestos mining and milling activity in South Africa. In 2003, Cape PLC and the plaintiffs reached an out of court settlement.

In 1997, a group of five South Africans suffering from asbestos-related disease (ARD) brought suit against Cape PLC in the English High Court seeking compensation for their injuries from Cape’s asbestos mining and milling activity in South Africa.  The plaintiffs, former Cape workers and individuals living in the vicinity of Cape’s operations, alleged that Cape exposed its workers to 30 times the British legal limit of asbestos dust without adequate protective gear and that asbestos related injuries were suffered by those living near Cape’s asbestos operations.  After the claim was filed, Cape applied to stay these claims on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that the case should be tried in South Africa.  At the beginning of 1998, Cape’s application was granted by the trial court, but the Court of Appeals later reversed the lower court’s decision.  In 1999, another 2000 claims were commenced against Cape in England for ARD based on Cape’s activity in South Africa.  Cape reapplied to stay these new claims, in addition to those filed in 1997, and Cape’s application was granted.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.  The plaintiffs then appealed to the UK House of Lords, and in 2000 the Law Lords held that the case should be allowed to continue in the English High Court.  The Law Lords found that South African courts would not be a viable alternative forum because legal aid in South Africa had been withdrawn for personal injury claims and no reasonable likelihood existed for the plaintiffs to acquire effective legal representation on a contingency fee basis for a case of such complexity.

After the House of Lords decision, more claimants joined the case, and by 2001 there were approximately 7500 claimants.  In 2001, Cape agreed to a £21 million out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs, but the company encountered financial problems in August 2002 and did not meet the agreed settlement terms.  Therefore, the litigation recommenced in September 2002, and Gencor Ltd. was joined as a defendant in the case.  Gencor is a South African company which took over some of Cape’s South African asbestos operations when Cape left the country in 1979. 

In 2003, the plaintiffs, Cape and Gencor reached a settlement agreement.  There were three parts to the settlement.  First, Gencor established and now administers a £35 million trust in South Africa (the trust is to compensate ARD victims in South Africa who were not represented by Leigh Day & Co.).  Second, Cape settled with its 7500 claimants for £7.5 million.  Third, Gencor settled with the 7500 claimants for approximately £3 million.


Chronologie

Informations sur la confidentialité

Ce site utilise des cookies et d'autres technologies de stockage web. Vous pouvez définir vos choix en matière de confidentialité ci-dessous. Les changements prendront effet immédiatement.

Pour plus d'informations sur notre utilisation du stockage web, veuillez vous référer à notre Politique en matière d'utilisation des données et de cookies

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

Cookie analytique

ON
OFF

Lorsque vous accédez à notre site Web, nous utilisons Google Analytics pour collecter des informations sur votre visite. Autoriser ce cookie nous permettra de comprendre en plus de détails sur votre parcours et d'améliorer la façon dont nous diffusons les informations. Toutes les informations analytiques sont anonymes et nous ne les utilisons pas pour vous identifier. Outre la possibilité que vous avez de refuser des cookies, vous pouvez installer le module pour la désactivation de Google Analytics.

Cookies promotionels

ON
OFF

Nous partageons des nouvelles et des mises à jour sur les entreprises et les droits de l'homme via des plateformes tierces, y compris les médias sociaux et les moteurs de recherche. Ces cookies nous aident à comprendre les performances de ces items.

Vos choix en matière de confidentialité pour ce site

Ce site utilise des cookies et d'autres technologies de stockage web pour améliorer votre expérience au-delà des fonctionnalités de base nécessaires.