Vedanta Resources plc and Another v Lungowe and Others

Abstract

N/A

Promoting Corporate Extraterritorial Sustainable Responsibility through the Lens of Social Licence to Operate

“…Although the circumstances under which a parent company could owe a legal duty of care to the employees of its subsidiaries had already been enunciated in Chandler v. Cape [37,83,84], the decision in Vedanta constitutes an important precedent for providing access to justice for foreign claimants [79]. This new trend has been followed by other jurisdictions such as the Netherlands [85] and Canada [86], and it is expected to have an impact on companies' willingness to implement human rights and environmental policies, as well as to actively supervise the operations of their subsidiary companies [87].…”

“…However, the last word in this matter is yet to be uttered [76]. Recently, the English Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in the understanding that the Court of Appeal had made various errors of law, including an approach to the factors and circumstances that might give rise to a duty of care that was inconsistent with that taken in the Vedanta case [87]. Thus, it may be expected that the new judgement will follow the same path, in line with the purpose of ensuring rigorous compliance with ethical requirements.…”

The Case for Eco-Liability: Post Okpabi Justifications for the Imposition of Liability on Parent Companies for Damage caused to the Environment by their Subsidiaries.

“…64 The defendants in question had caused a toxic discharge from a mine, leading to severe health issues for more than 1500 Zambian villagers. 65 Here the existence of an internal sustainability report was used to justify the imposition of liability on a parent company for the pollution caused by its subsidiary. This was only possible, however, through a complicated discussion of jurisdictional issues, followed by confirmation that parentsubsidiary liability was not in itself a separate category of negligence.…”

Corporate Liability for Toxic Torts Abroad: Vedanta v Lungowe in the Supreme Court

“…There has been some suggestion that Vedanta has extended the parent company duty of care beyond previous findings, and maybe even beyond the reach of the corporate group. 70 While the Court of Appeal's decision in Chandler v Cape plc recognised a duty to employees of a parent's subsidiary in respect of asbestos exposure (i.e. personal injury), Vedanta involves a duty to neighbours and the local community affected by damage caused to the environment.…”