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

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

文章

2021年2月18日

作者:
Dalia Palombo, University of St. Gallen, on CORE Coalition Blog

Okpabi v Shell and Lungowe v Vedanta Dispel Three Myths

In less than two years, it is also the second Supreme Court ruling on the question of whether UK courts have jurisdiction to hear extraterritorial cases applying the tort law duty of care to multinational enterprises. In Okpabi v Shell, the Supreme Court reinforced the ruling of its previous case Lungowe v Vedanta. These jurisdictional cases not only clarified when UK courts have jurisdiction over a UK parent company for extraterritorial torts committed by its foreign subsidiaries, but they also provided authoritative guidelines as to how lower courts should decide on the merits of parental liability cases.

The jurisprudence on the tort law duty of care has established three myths that Okpabi v Shell and Lungowe v Vedanta dispelled: first, the myth that English courts would hardly ever assert jurisdiction on torts allegedly committed in foreign countries; second, the myth that parent companies may owe a duty of care towards the employees of a corporate group, but not towards third parties; third, the myth that it is only in a narrow category of cases that claimants could prove the existence of a parent company’s duty of care...

In both Okpabi v Shell and Lungowe v Vedanta, the Supreme Court emphasised that the number of circumstances in which a parent may owe a duty of care towards the victims of tort perpetrated by its subsidiaries are various and should not be limited. For example, the control exercised by a parent company over its subsidiary, the fact that a parent takes over the management of its subsidiary or group wide policies could all be relevant factors, but are not necessary elements, to establish the existence of a duty of care. It is yet to be seen how lower courts will take such factors into account when deciding on the merits of Okpabi v Shell and Lungowe v Vedanta.

However, it is clear that the approach taken by the Supreme Court opens the door to a wide variety of situations where a parent may owe a duty of care towards the tort victims injured or damaged by its subsidiaries.

屬於以下案件的一部分

Vedanta Resources lawsuit (re water contamination, Zambia)

Shell lawsuit (re oil spills & Ogale & Bille communities in Nigeria - Okpabi v Shell)

隱私資訊

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡存儲技術。您可以在下方設置您的隱私選項。您所作的更改將立即生效。

有關我們使用網絡儲存技術的更多資訊,請參閱我們的 數據使用和 Cookie 政策

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.

分析cookie

ON
OFF

您瀏覽本網頁時我們將以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie將有助我們理解您的瀏覽資訊,並協助我們改善呈現資訊的方法。所有分析資訊都以匿名方式收集,我們並不能用相關資訊得到您的個人信息。谷歌在所有主要瀏覽器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加應用程式。

市場營銷cookies

ON
OFF

我們從第三方網站獲得企業責任資訊,當中包括社交媒體和搜尋引擎。這些cookie協助我們理解相關瀏覽數據。

您在此網站上的隱私選項

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡儲存技術來增強您在必要核心功能之外的體驗。