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

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

記事

2012年4月25日

著者:
Richard Meeran, Leigh Day & Co

[DOC] Chandler v Cape plc Case No: B3/2011/1272 [statement by Richard Meeran of Leigh Day & Co]

A landmark judgment of the UK Court of Appeal...sets a legal precedent for holding multinational parent companies accountable under the law of negligence and constitutes a further breakthrough...David Chandler, 71 was employed by Cape Building Products Limited, a subsidiary of Cape PLC, between 1959 and 1961 where he suffered heavy asbestos exposure. He was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2007. Unable to pursue a claim against Cape Building Products, due to an 'asbestosis exclusion clause' in its insurance policy, Mr Chandler pursued the claim instead against Cape...As a result of this ruling there can be no principled legal objection, under UK law, to the imposition of a legal duty of care on a multinational parent company. But whether or not such a duty should be imposed will depend on the facts and consequently there will be instances where the degree of involvement and control by the parent warrant its imposition and other instances where it does not.