No direct liability in tort for UK parent company. Third ‘anchor defendant’ decision in the Court of Appeal.

 

AAA v Unilever [2018] EWCA Civ 1532 is the third Court of Appeal decision in the trio of anchor defendant cases (the others being Lungowe v Vedanta and Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell) that came before the courts last year raising the issue of when a parent company owes a duty of care to persons affected by the activities of its overseas subsidiary. The claimants were workers on a tea plantation in Kenyan who had suffered from criminal acts following the violence that followed the 2007 elections, which was on tribal lines. The issue was whether the parent company and the subsidiary owed a duty of care to people on the estate to protect them from unlawful violence. The claimants conceded that Kenyan law applied but it was accepted that English law was very persuasive in Kenya and Kenyan law would follow English law on the imposition of a duty of care on the parent company. Elizabeth Laing J admitted the possibility of a duty of care being owed by the parent company but the claim foundered on the issue of foreseeability of the type of harm suffered by the claimants.

Last week the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the grounds that there was no arguable case that the parent company owed a duty of care to the claimants. Sales LJ, giving the judgment of the Court, held that a parent company could owe a direct duty of care to those affected by the activities of its subsidiary in two situations: (i) where the parent has in substance taken over the management of the relevant activity of the subsidiary in place of, or jointly with, the subsidiary’s own management; or (ii) where the parent has given relevant advice to the subsidiary about how it should manage a particular risk.

The appellants accepted that they could not say that their claim was within the first category as the management of the affairs of Unilever’s Kenyan subsidiary, UTKL, was conducted by the management of UTKL. Instead, they sought to bring their claim within the second category, relying upon advice which they say was given by Unilever to UTKL in relation to the management of risk in respect of political unrest and violence in Kenya.  However, the witness evidence and the documentary evidence, showed that UTKL did not receive relevant advice from Unilever in relation to such matters, and that UTKL understood that it was responsible itself for devising its own risk management policy and for handling the severe crisis which arose in late 2007, and that it did so.

So far, the three anchor defendant cases on whether a parent company owes a duty of care in respect of the activities of its subsidiary company have seen two decisions against the claimants, and one Vedanta v Lungowe in their favour. In Vedanta  permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on 23 March 2018, and in Okpabi the claimants have stated their intent to apply for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are likely to see a lot more on this question in the coming months.

 

 

Insurance fraudsters, look out! There are punitives about.

Can an insurer get punitive damages against fraudsters and fraudulent claimants? Until today the matter was doubtful. Although such damages had since Kuddus v Leicestershire Chief Constable [2002] 2 AC 122 been available on principle for all causes of action, they were still subject to Lord Devlin’s other limits in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129: statute aside, there had to be either public authority wrongdoing or an intent to make gains exceeding any compensation payable. The former was not relevant: as for the latter, even if the fraudster made a gain his liability was not less than but equal to, or — once other heads of damage such as investigation were thrown in — greater than, that gain.

Logical, but from today not correct, courtesy of some slightly tortuous reasoning from the Court of Appeal.

 Axa Insurance UK Plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1330 (15 June 2018) involved a couple of fraudulent fender-bender-cum-whiplash claims against Axa. Axa, to their credit, smelt a rat. They paid nothing and instead sued the lawyers responsible for making the claims in deceit. In this action they claimed their costs in investigating, and superadded a claim for punitive damages. Reversing the trial judge, the Court of Appeal said they could have the latter, and mulcted each defendant in the sum of £20,000. The requirement for calculation of gains exceeding liabilities was satisfied, it was said, because even if the fraudsters knew they were liable for the full amount of their ill-gotten gains they hoped never in fact to pay; this hope was sufficient to generate the element of hoped-for profit.

The result is welcome, even if the reasoning is a bit surprising. It is also highly significant, since it seems to mean that almost any fraudulent claim against an insurer is now capable of generating a punitive damages liability in the person bringing it if the court thinks fit to exercise its discretion in favour of an award. This presumably includes cases where the fraudster is the claimant himself; although fraudulent claims by policyholders are now dealt with by Part 4 of the Insurance Act 2015, it seems unlikely that this provision was intended to pre-empt the right of the underwriter to sue in tort for deceit if he so wished.

As to when such awards will be made, this is not yet clear. At a guess they are most likely where the whole, or a large proportion, of the claim is bogus: it seems doubtful whether simple exaggeration cases will attract them. But all we can do now is wait and see.

 

Foreign banks breathe easier in the US after Supreme Court’s decision on scope of the Alien Tort Statute.

 

 

The US Judiciary Act of 1789, 28 U. S. C. §1350. which is now known as the Alien Tort Statute, provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” For nearly forty years it has been used as the gateway to bring suits in the US District Courts against individuals and corporations based on alleged violations of norms of international law. The Supreme Court has twice considered the scope of the ATS, in Sosa in 2004, and in Kiobel in 2013, each time limiting its scope. It has now spoken for a third time in Jesner v Arab Bank when it gave judgment last Tuesday, in a majority decision that foreign corporations could not be subject to liability under the ATS.

In Jesner v Arab Bank  foreign plaintiffs sued a Jordanian bank, Arab Bank, alleging that it had helped facilitate financial transactions to terrorist organisations which had then committed attacks in Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip between 1995 and 2005 during which plaintiffs or their family members were injured. It was alleged that Arab Bank had used its New York branch to clear US dollar transactions which had led to money being sent to the terrorist organisations.

The question framed before the Supreme Court was whether corporations could be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute. The Second Circuit in 2010 in Kiobel had found that corporations could not be held liable under the ATS, and the question was referred to the Supreme Court. However, in 2013 the Supreme Court left the question unanswered and affirmed the Second Circuit’s dismissal by reference to a new question it had raised during argument before it in 2012 concerning the extra-territorial scope of the ATS. The Supreme Court concluded that the presumption that US statutes should not have extra-territorial effect applied to the ATS and would only be rebutted if the claim were to ‘touch and concern the territory of the United States…with sufficient force’.

In Jesner, the Supreme Court gave a partial answer to the question initially framed in Kiobel. The Supreme Court referred to its 2004 decision on the scope of the ATS in Sosa  which set out a two part test. First, was the alleged violation of the law of nations a violation of a norm that  is ‘specific, universal and obligatory’?  Second, would allowing the case to proceed be an appropriate exercise of judicial discretion?

On the first question of whether there is a specific, universal and obligatory norm that corporations are liable for violations of international law, Justice Kennedy expressed the view that there was not such norm, citing the fact that international criminal tribunals had never been given jurisdiction over corporations, but only over natural persons. Justice Roberts and Thomas concurred but this view did not obtain majority support.

The case was decided on the basis of the application of the second Sosa test. By a 5-4 majority the Supreme Court concluded that extending liability under the ATS to foreign corporations should be a matter for Congress to decide, rather than the judiciary. Congress’s intent could be deduced from the fact that a similar statute, the 1991 Torture Victims Protection Act, had been specifically limited to suits against ‘individuals’.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s dismissal of the suit under the ATS against Arab Bank, a foreign corporation.

The upshot of the decision is that the scope of the Alien Tort Statute has been further restricted in that it no longer permits claims against foreign corporations. The decision may put the final nail in the ATS coffin. However, claims against US corporations, and foreign and US natural persons, could still be made, although the ‘touch and concern’ requirement set out in Kiobel means that there must be a strong link to the US for the claim to proceed. Some Circuits have interpreted the ‘touch and concern’ requirement to mean that the primary violation of international law must have taken place within the US, so excluding claims based on secondary violations for aiding and abetting by US corporations. The Supreme Court has twice denied certiorari to clarify this issue.

What a waste. The hazards of ship recycling.

 

On 15 March 2018 in the Rotterdam District Court, Seatrade were heavily fined and  two of its executives have been banned from working as a director, commissioner, advisor or employee of a shipping company for one year. The court declined to impose prison sentences on the directors, as requested by the prosecutor. The criminal charges arose out of the sale of four reefer vessels for scrapping which was done in Bangladesh, India and Turkey, in contravention of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, which implements the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal”. The Regulation prohibits E.U. Member States from exporting hazardous waste to countries outside the OECD. Ships sailing to their final destination will contain large quantities of hazardous substances such as bunker oil, lubricating oil, PCBs and asbestos and, in the case of reefer vessels, HCFCs. The court determined that the four ships were to be categorised as waste as the decision to dismantle them had been made when they sailed from Rotterdam and Hamburg in 2012 and that their sale was in contravention of the Regulation. Seatrade intend to appeal.

In another development relating to the sale of ships for dismantling in Asia, London solicitors Leigh Day announced in December 2017 that they will be bringing a claim in tort for injuries sustained by a metal cutter while dismantling a container ship in Chittagong. The claim is being brought against the ship’s managers, Zodiac Maritime, who had sold the vessel for scrap. Leigh Day maintain that Zodiac knew the methods involved in dismantling vessels in Chittagong, yet it sold the vessel in the full knowledge that it would be broken up in unsafe conditions.

Judgment creditors can celebrate in England — UK Supreme Court.

English courts are not very keen on judgment debtors who spirit assets away out of sight of our enforcement officers. The Supreme Court today showed they meant business when faced with this scenario. They confirmed in JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2018] UKSC 19 that anyone who in England does anything to help a debtor do this can find himself at the receiving end of a civil claim from the judgment creditor.

Mukhtar Ablyazov, a colourful Kazakh politician, dissident and businessman who used to run the biggest bank in Kazakhstan, was successfully sued here by the bank for the moderate sum of US$4.6 billion. The court issued the usual congeries of worldwide freezing orders in aid of enforcement, which were disobeyed. In 2012 Mr Ablyazov, facing the prospect of time inside for contempt, fled England and continued with a large degree of success to move his assets around to make them inaccessible.

The Ablyazov cupboard being bare, the bank then turned to an associate, one Ilyas Khrapunov, who had allegedly agreed in England to help Mr Ablyazov to cause his assets to vanish and later done just that. It sued Mr Khrapunov in tort, alleging that the above acts amounted to an unlawful means conspiracy. Mr Khrapunov applied to strike, arguing that if (as is clear) contempt of court cannot give rise to damages, the bank shouldn’t be allowed to plead conspiracy to get a similar remedy by the back door. He also argued that in any case he was safely tucked up in Switzerland; that the assets were outside England; and that the mere fact that he had conspired in England to make those assets disappear did not take away his right under the Lugano Convention to be sued in his country of domicile.

Mr Khrapunov lost all the way in the Supreme Court. There was no reason why the fact that he had acted in contempt of court should not count as unlawful means for the purposes of conspiracy. Furthermore, the jurisprudence under the Brussels I / Lugano system made it clear that for the purpose of non-contractual liability, where jurisdiction laywas “either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage”, an agreement amounted to an ” event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage.”

Good news, in other words, for judgment creditors: bad news for friends of fugitive tycoons.

“Everywhere you go, you can be sure with Shell.” No arguable duty of care in respect of Nigerian oil pollution leaks.

 

The issue of a parent company’s potential direct liability in tort in respect of acts of one of its subsidiary companies has recently come before the Court of Appeal in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd , [2018] EWCA Civ 191. The Nigerian claimants suffered from harm from pollution arising from oil leaks from Nigerian land pipelines due to the illegal process of “bunkering” by which oil is stolen by tapping into the pipelines.

The claimants wanted to sue  Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary SPDC, who operated the pipelines, in the English courts rather than in Nigeria. To this end they sued the English holding company, Royal Dutch Shell (‘RDS’), in the English courts. RDS would now serve as an ‘anchor defendant’ and the claimants obtained leave to serve SPDC out of the jurisdiction under para 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B, on the ground that there was between the claimant and RDS a real issue which it was reasonable for the court to try and the claimant wished to serve SPDC as a necessary or proper party to that claim.

RDS applied under CPR Part 11(1) for orders declaring that the court had no jurisdiction to try the claims against it, or should not exercise such jurisdiction as it had. At first instance Fraser J found that there was no arguable duty of care owed by the parent company Royal Dutch Shell Plc to those affected by the operations of its subsidiary in Nigeria.( [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC), noted in this blog on 2 February 2017. The governing law would be that of Nigeria, but the issue was decided under English law, because the legal experts for the parties were agreed that the law of Nigeria would follow, or at least include as an essential component, the law of England in this respect.

The Court of Appeal has now upheld the decision by a 2-1 majority, Sales LJ dissenting. The Court of Appeal applied the three stage Caparo Industries v Dickman test for assessing novel duties of care[1990] 2 AC 605 (HL) which set out three requirements, all of which had to be satisfied. (1) Was it foreseeable that if the defendant failed to take reasonable care, the plaintiff would be injured by the acts or omissions of the defendant (the foreseeability factor)? (2) Was there a relationship between the plaintiff the defendant characterized by the law as one of “proximity” or of being “neighbours” one to another (the proximity factor)? (3) as a matter of legal policy it would be fair and just to impose a duty of care on the defendant (the policy factor)? The duty of care argued for by the claimants foundered on the proximity requirement.

The claimants’ based their case on the duty of care owed by RDS to them on the fact that

“… [RDS] exerts significant control and oversights over [SPDC’s] compliance with its environmental and regulatory obligations and has assumed responsibility for ensuring observance of proper environmental standards by [SPDC] in Nigeria. [RDS] carefully monitors and directs the activities of [SPDC] and has the power and authority to intervene if [SPDC] fails to comply with the Shell Group’s global standards and/or Nigerian law.”

The claimants relied on five main factors to demonstrate RDS’s arguable control of SPDC’s operations: (1) the issue of mandatory policies, standards and manuals which applied to SPDC, (2) the imposition of mandatory design and engineering practices, (3) the imposition of a system of supervision and oversight of the implementation of RDS’s standards which bore directly on the pleaded allegations of negligence, (4) the imposition of financial control over SPDC in respect of spending which, again, directly relevant to the allegations of negligence and (5) a high level in the direction and oversight of SPDC’s operations.

Having reviewed the evidence submitted by the claimants Simon LJ concluded that none of the claimants’ five factors, either individually or cumulatively demonstrated a sufficient degree of control of SPDC’s operations in Nigeria by RDS to establish the necessary degree of proximity. There was no arguable case that RDS controlled SPDC’s operations, or that it had direct responsibility for practices or failures which were the subject of the claim. Simon LJ noted an important distinction between a parent company which controls, or shares control of, the material operations on the one hand, and a parent company which issues mandatory policies and standards which are intended to apply throughout a group of companies in order to ensure conformity with particular standards. “The issuing of mandatory policies plainly cannot mean that a parent has taken control of the operations of a subsidiary (and, necessarily, every subsidiary) such as to give rise to a duty of care in favour of any person or class of persons affected by the policies. [88]”.

A similar point was made by Sir Geoffrey Vos. The issue of mandatory policies, standards and manuals were of a highlevel nature and did not indicate control; control rested with SPDC which was responsible for its own operations.

“The promulgation of group standards and practices is not, in my view, enough to prove the “imposition” of mandatory design and engineering practices. There was no real evidence to show that these practices were imposed even if they were described as mandatory. There would have needed to be evidence that RDS took upon itself the enforcement of the standards, which it plainly did not. It expected SPDC to apply the standards it set. The same point applies to the suggested “imposition” of a system of supervision and oversight of the implementation of RDS’s standards which were said to bear directly on the pleaded allegations of negligence. RDS said that there should be a system of supervision and oversight, but left it to SPDC to operate that system. It did not have the wherewithal to do anything else.[205]”

 

Opkabi is one of three transnational tort claims involving attempts to sue a foreign subsidiary company using the English parent company as an ‘anchor’ defendant. In Lungowe v Vedanta and AAA v Unilever the court accepted that there was an arguable case that the anchor defendant owed a duty of care, although in AAA the claim foundered on the lack of foreseeability of the harm suffered by the claimants at the hands of third parties in the post-election violence in Kenya after the 2007 elections. An appeal is due to be heard later this year.

As a sidenote, in similar proceedings brought against SPDC in the Netherlands, using RDS as an ‘anchor defendant’, the Dutch Court of Appeal in December 2015 concluded that the claims against RDS were not bound to fail. They reasoned.

“Considering the foreseeable serious consequences of oil spills to the local environment from a potential spill source, it cannot be ruled out from the outset that the parent company may be expected in such a case to take an interest in preventing spills (or in other words, that there is a duty of care in accordance with the criteria set out in Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2, [1990] 1 All ER 56), the more so if it has made the prevention of environmental damage by the activities of group companies a spearhead and is, to a certain degree, actively involved in and managing the business operations of such companies, which is not to say that without this attention and involvement a violation of the duty of care is unthinkable and that culpable negligence with regard to the said interests can never result in liability.”

 

The claimants’ solicitors in Opkabi, Leigh Day, have indicated their intention to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

 

Carry on suing in England – at least if you’re suing a non-European

In matters of tort foreign defendants domiciled in the EEA are reasonably well-protected from the exorbitant jurisdiction of the English courts. Both Brussels I Recast and Lugano II limit jurisdction to cases where where the act leading to liability, or the harm done by it, happened in England: furthermore, Euro-law makes it clear that the reference to harm here is fairly restrictive, referring only to direct harm and not to the financial effects of it, such as the straitening of an English widow’s circumstances following a wrongful death abroad.

By contrast, there is no such luck for defendants domiciled outside the EEA. For some time conflicts lawyers have remarked that English claimants, especially personal injury claimants, find it remarkably easy to establish jurisdiction against them. This is because CPR, PD6B 3.1(9), allows service out not only where damage results from an act “committed … within the jurisdiction” but also in all cases of damage “sustained …within the jurisdiction.”, and in a series of cases such as Booth v Phillips [2004] 1 WLR 3292 and Cooley v Ramsey [2008] ILPr 27 this has been held to cover almost any loss, even consequential, suffered in the jurisdiction. And in Four Seasons Holdings Inc v Brownlie [2017] UKSC 80 the Supreme Court by a majority (Lords Wilson and Clarke and Lady Hale vs Lords Sumption and Hughes) has now weakly upheld this distinction.

International law enthusiasts will know that this case arose out of a car accident in Egypt in which the late Prof Ian Brownlie was tragically killed and his widow was injured. The actual decision was in the event a foregone conclusion: by the time the case reached the Supreme Court it was clear that the defendants, the franchising company behind the Brownlies’ Egyptian tourist hotel which had organised the fatal car ride, had never contracted with the Brownlies and was not liable in tort for the acts of the hotel itself. Nevertheless, the majority in the Supreme Court, doubting the decision of the Court of Appeal on this point, made it clear that, while not finally deciding the issue, they were not prepared to condemn the older authorities. It seems likely that future cases will follow their lead.

One further point. Lord Sumption and Lady Hale made the point that the decision whether a contract was made in England, another of the “gateways” in non-EEA cases (see CPR, PD6B 3.1(6)), was in the light of cases like Entores v Miles Far East Corpn [1955] 2 QB 327, pretty arbitrary and could do with a look from the Rules Committee. They were right. Let’s hope something gets done.

Valuers’ negligence: no claim for more than lender loses

Not often do you find a Supreme Court decision in only 15 paragraphs that is clear, sensible and palpably right. Today we got just that in the valuers’ negligence decision of Tiuta International Ltd (in liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd [2017] UKSC 77. Although a land case, this is of equal, and large, significance to ship and other finance.

In 2011 Tiuta lent £2.475 million for a bijou Home Counties development against a valuation by De Villiers of £2.3 million undeveloped / £4.5 million complete, of which no complaint was made. After some months the developers ran into difficulties. In 2012 Tiuta made a new loan of £3.088 million against the same development, of which £2.799 million went to discharge the old loan plus accrued interest, and the balance of £289,000 was new money. This latter advance was made against a new valuation by De Villiers in the sum of £3.5 million undeveloped / £4.9 million complete. Shortly after all this, the developers went bust and Tiuta lost big money.

Tiuta sued De Villiers for their loss, alleging negligence in the second valuation. De Villiers riposted that they could not possibly be answerable for more than £289,000, since even if they had not been negligent Tiuta would still have been exposed to the original, largely irrecoverable, balance of £2.799 million. To everyone’s surprise, a majority in the Court of Appeal disagreed. The 2011 loan had been paid off and was now out of the reckoning: the 2012 loan in the figure of £3.088 million counted as an entirely new advance made against the suspect valuation, and on principle any loss on it was recoverable. McCombe LJ, the dissentient, was left gasping and stretching his eyes (remember Hilaire Belloc’s Matilda?) at the idea that new money injection of a mere £289,000 could give Tiuta, free gratis and for nothing, a claim of up to £3 million that had not been there before.

The Supreme Court swiftly restored orthodoxy. Whether the lenders provided new money of £289,000 and left the existing loan of £2.799 million untouched, or provided a new loan of £3 million-plus which was partly used to pay off the original loan, the result was the same: the only net increase in exposure was £289,000 and that was all that was recoverable. Nor could Tiuta get home by saying that the repayment of the original loan was somehow a collateral benefit to Tiuta: as Lord Sumption observed with merciless logic, it was in fact neither collateral nor a benefit.

Advantage PI insurers, to be sure. On the other hand, this still leaves some questions unanswered. If the first lender had been someone other than Tiuta, the result would presumably have been different. Does this mean that if a lender wants to avoid the result in Tiuta, all it has to do is to make sure that when it lends several times to the same project, each loan is made by a separate subsidiary special purpose vehicle (quite easy to arrange)? One suspects lawyers are already busy dealing with questions like this and advising accordingly.

Getting a freezing order can damage your wallet — official

The decision in Fiona Trust v Privalov [2016] EWHC 2163 (Comm) (noted in this blog here) has been upheld in the Court of Appeal: see SCF Tankers Ltd & Ors v Privalov [2017] EWCA Civ 1877. Readers will remember that Russian shipping conglomerate SCF (aka Sovcomflot, previously Fiona) sued another Russian businessman for serious money, alleging that he had bribed its officers to enter into all sorts of disadvantageous agreements, and in support of the action got a freezing order for something over half-a-billion dollars. Having recovered a measly $16 million, it was then hit by Males J with an order on its undertaking in damages amounting to something close to $50 million — a costly victory indeed. Little of substance to report about the CA decision: it essentially approved the findings below on causation and mitigation. Males J’s judgment, and our blog post, remain the go-to place for detailed discussion of the principles to be applied.

Parent company liability for subsidiary operations abroad.  

 

An interesting new Court of Appeal decision on transnational litigation in the  English courts concerning alleged torts committed overseas. Lungowe v Vedanta and Konkola Copper Mines [2017] EWCA Civ 1528 involved claims by Zambian citizens against the defendants alleging personal injury, damage to property and loss of income, amenity and enjoyment of land, due to alleged pollution and environmental damage caused by discharges from the Nchanga copper mine since 2005. Konkola Copper Mines (‘KCM’), a Zambian company, owned and operated the mine. Vedanta, a UK company, is a holding company for various metal and mining companies, of which KCM is one.

The claim was served on Vedanta by virtue of its domicile in the UK and permission was granted for the claim form and particulars of claim to be served out of the jurisdiction on KCM. Vedanta and KCM both applied for declarations that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claims. In June 2016 Coulson J dismissed the challenges. The Court of Appeal has now upheld the dismissal.

  1. Vedanta’s position.

Under art. 4 of the Recast Brussels Judgments Regulation 2012 the claimants were entitled to sue Vedanta in the UK by virtue of its domicile. The Court of Appeal held that following the ECJ’s decision in Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801, it was clear that there was no scope for staying proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens where jurisdiction was established on the grounds of the defendant’s domicile under art. 4. Although in principle it might be possible to argue that invoking the rules in the Recast Regulation amounted to an abuse of EU law, there would have to be sufficient evidence to show that the claimant had conducted itself so as to distort the purpose of that rule of jurisdiction. The present case did not meet the high threshold for an abuse argument to succeed.

  1. KCM’s position

The application to serve KCM out of the jurisdiction in Zambia was based on para 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B on the ground that there was between the claimant and Vedanta a real issue which it was reasonable for the court to try and the claimant wished to serve KCM as a necessary or proper party to that claim. If the claimants could satisfy these conditions, the court still retained a discretion and CPR 6.37(3) provide that: “The court will not give permission unless satisfied that England and Wales is the proper place in which to bring the claim.”

An important issue in this analysis was whether there was a real issue between the claimants and Vedanta. This raised the question of whether a parent company could owe a duty of care to those affected by the operations of a subsidiary. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Chandler v Cape such a duty towards the employee of a subsidiary could arise where the parent company (a) has taken direct responsibility for devising a material health and safety policy the adequacy of which is the subject of the claim, or (b) controls the operations which give rise to the claim. The parent must be well placed, because of its knowledge and expertise to protect the employees of the subsidiary. If both parent and subsidiary have similar knowledge and expertise and they jointly take decisions about mine safety, which the subsidiary implements, both companies may (depending on the circumstances) owe a duty of care to those affected by those decisions. This type of duty may also be owed in analogous situations, not only to employees of the subsidiary but to those affected by the operations of the subsidiary. The Judge had decided on the basis of the pleaded case that it was arguable that such Vedanta did owe such a duty of care to those affected by KCM’s operations. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Judge had been entitled to reach that conclusion. There was a serious question to be tried which could not be disposed of summarily, notwithstanding that it went to the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal also upheld the finding that it was reasonable to try the issue between Vedanta and the claimants. Vedanta was sued within the jurisdiction pursuant to a mandatory jurisdictional rule and the claimants had an interest in suing Vedanta other than for enabling them to bring KCM within the jurisdiction. The claimants were suing Vedanta as a company with sufficient funds to meet any judgment of the English court, whereas they had grounds to believe, and evidence to show, that KCM might be unable or unwilling to meet such a judgment. KCM was a necessary and proper party to the Vedanta claim because the claims against the two defendants were based on the same facts and relied on similar legal principles and the Judge was entitled to conclude that Vedanta and KCM could be regarded as broadly equivalent defendants.

As to whether England and Wales was the proper place in which to bring the claim, the Court of Appeal again upheld the Judge’s finding that it was. Although, absent the claim against Vedanta, it would be clear that England would not be the appropriate forum for the claims – that would be Zambia, the position change once the claim against Vedanta was taken into account. It would be inappropriate for the litigation to be conducted in parallel proceedings involving identical or virtually identical facts, witnesses and documents, in circumstances where the claim against Vedanta would in any event continue in England.

The case can be contrasted with the earlier decision of Fraser J in Okpabi and others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC), noted in this blog on 2 February 2017.  Fraser J found that there was no arguable duty of care owed by the parent company Royal Dutch Shell Plc to those affected by the operations of its subsidiary in Nigeria. He declined to follow Coulson J’s decision in the instant case, identifying facts that distinguished the two cases. The decision is under appeal.