Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:27:37.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multinational Human Rights Litigation in the UK: A Retrospective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2021

Richard MEERAN Open the ORCID record for Richard MEERAN [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the key features of multinational human rights litigation in the United Kingdom, including the development of a tort-based parent company duty of care, the principles relating to forum non conveniens and applicable law and other key procedural and practical barriers to victims’ access to justice. The article highlights some of the actual and perceived limitations of litigation. It also considers the concurrent development of and mutually reinforcing relationship between MNC tort litigation and the field of Business & Human Rights.

Keywords

barriers to justiceforum non conveniensinterplay between MNC litigation and BHRjurisdictionparent company liability
Type
Scholarly Articles – Special Issue on “BHR Landscape after 10 years of the UNGPs: An Assessment”
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 2: Special Issue: BHR Landscape after 10 years of the UNGPs: An Assessment , June 2021 , pp. 255 - 269
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: The author and his law firm, Leigh Day, have been the legal representatives for the claimants in the key cases described in this article.

*

Partner, Head of International, Leigh Day, London, UK

References

1 All the cases in this article, bar the following identified in footnotes 13, 15, 25, 26, 48 and 50 below were brought by Leigh Day.

2 Ngcobo v Thor Chemicals Holdings Ltd & Desmond Cowley (Times L Rep 10 November 1995).

3 Sithole v Thor Chemicals Holdings Ltd & Desmond Cowley (Times L Rep 15 February 1995).

4 ‘Thor bosses acquitted, but firm fined R13,500’, Daily News (SA, 17 February 1995).

5 Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc [1998] A.C 854.

6 Lubbe & Ors v Cape plc [2000] 1WLR 1545.

7 Begum v Maran [2021] EWCA Civ 326.

8 Motto & Others v Trafigura [2011] EWCA Civ 1150 (12 October 2011).

9 Bodo Community v Shell & SPDC [2014] EWHC 958 (TCC).

10 Pedro Emiro Florez Arroyo and others v Equion Energia Limited (formerly known as BP Exploration Company (Colombia) Limited) [2016] EWHC 1699 (TCC).

11 Lungowe & Others v Vedanta & Another [2019] UKSC 20.

12 Bravo & Others v Amerisur Resources plc [2020] EWHC 125 (QB).

13 Municipio De Mariana v BHP Billiton plc & others [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC). The court rejected the claim on the basis that it was an ‘abuse of process’ and ‘irredeemably unmanageable’, due to duplication and existence of parallel proceedings in Brazil and the number of claimants. NB: this is not a Leigh Day case.

14 Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell plc & Anor [2021] UKSC 3.

15 Harrison Jalla & Ors v Shell International Trading & Shipping Co & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 63. NB: this is not a Leigh Day case.

16 Guerrero & Others v Monterrico Metals plc [2009] EWHC 247.

17 Kesabo v African Barrick Gold Plc & NMGML [2013] EWHC 4045.

18 Vilca & Others v Xstrata Ltd & Another [2017] Med LR Plus 32.

19 Kalma & Others v African Minerals Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 3506.

20 AAA & Others v Unilever plc & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1532.

21 AAA & Others v Gemfields Limited (claim number HQ17P04399).

22 AAA v (1) Camelia plc (2) Linton Park plc and Robertson Bois Dickson Anderson Ltd.

23 Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & Others [2020] EWHC 901.

24 Connelly v RTZ Corporation plc [1998] A.C 854; Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545.

25 Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal (1986) 634 F. Supp. 842.

26 Aguinda v Texaco, Inc, 142 F Supp 2d 534, 554 (SDNY 2001); Aguinda v Texaco, Inc, 303 F 3d 470, 480 (2d Cir 2002).

27 Pursuant to Article 63 (formerly Article 60), a corporation is domiciled in the place of (a) its statutory seat, (b) central administration or (c) principal place of business.

28 Owusu v Jackson Case C-281/02 [2005] ECR I-1383.

29 Motto & Others v Trafigura, note 8.

30 Guerrero & Others v Monterrico Metals plc [2009] EWHC 247.

31 Vedanta Resources plc & Another v Lungowe & Others [2019] UKSC 20.

32 EUR-Lex - 22007A1221(03) - EN - EUR-Lex.

33 Communication COM (2021) 222 final of the European Commission dated 4 May 2021 and entitled ‘Assessment on the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention’ expresses the view that ‘the EU should not give its consent to the Accession of the United Kingdom to the Lugano Convention’

34 Meeran, R, ‘Process Liability of Multinationals: Overcoming the Forum Hurdle’ (November 1995) Journal of Personal Injury Litigation 170–185.Google Scholar

35 Ngcobo v Thor Chemicals Holdings Ltd v others, January 1996 unreported; Lubbe & Others v Cape [1998] C.L.C. 1559; Connelly v RTZ [1999] CLC 533.

36 ‘The Risks of Being a Multinational’, Financial Times (25 July 1997).

37 Halina Ward, ‘Corporate accountability in search of a treaty? Some insights from foreign direct liability’ (May 2002). The Royal Institute of International Affairs Sustainable Development Programme Briefing Paper No 4.

38 Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525; Vedanta Resources plc & Another v Lungowe & Others [2018] WLR 3575.

39 ‘The sins of the sons – a little-noticed court case with big implications’, The Economist (26 May 2012).

40 Vedanta Resources plc & Another v Lungowe & Others [2019] UKSC 20 at §49.

41 Okpabi & Others v Royal Dutch Shell plc & Anor [2021] UKSC 3.

42 Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & Others [2020] EWHC 901.

43 Begum v Maran [2021] EWCA Civ 326.

44 The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (UK Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/834).

45 Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations.

46 Kesabo v African Barrick Gold plc & NMGML [2013] EWHC 4045.

47 Okpabi & Others v Royal Dutch Shell plc and SPDC [2018] WLR(D) 9.

48 Akpan v Royal Dutch Shell & SPDC, Court of Appeal of The Hague, 18 December 2015.

49 www.childrenofkabwe.com (accessed 29 March 2021).

50 Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc [2013] ONSC 1414.

51 Guerrero & Others v Monterrico Metals plc & Another [2009] EWHC 2475 (QB).

52 Vilca & Others v Xstrata Ltd & Another [2017] Med LR Plus 32.

53 Lubbe & Ors v Cape plc [2000] 1WLR 1545.

54 See for example Vilca & 21 Others v Xstrata Limited & Another [2016] EWHC 389(QB).

55 Vedanta Resources plc & Another v Lungowe & Others [2019] UKSC 20.

56 As per Connelly v RTZ Corporation plc [1998] A.C 854; Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545.

57 For example, this was argued in Vilca & Others v Xstrata Ltd.

58 Belhaj v Straw & Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 3.

59 Cassel, D, ‘Outlining the Case for a Common Law Duty of Care of Business to Exercise Human Rights Due Diligence’ (2016) 1:2 Business and Human Rights Journal 179–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 ‘Zambia: Anglo American must be held to account for industrial scale lead poisoning in Kabwe’ (23 February 2021), Amnesty International UK, press statement.

61 Dugan, Emily, ‘“Rape, beatings and death” at Kakuzi, the Kenyan farm that helps feed the UK’s avocado habit. Court papers allege guards at a British estate in Kenya that supplies Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Lidl have committed human rights abuse’ Sunday Times (11 October 2020)Google Scholar; Nilsson, Patricia, ‘Tesco drops avocado supplier after allegations of rights abuse’, Financial Times (11 October 2020)Google Scholar.

62 ‘UK firm pays £4.6m to settle claims of “rape and murder” at Kakuzi avocado farm’, Sunday Times (14 February 2021).

63 Uber BV & Others v Aslam & Others [2021] UKSC 5.

64 ‘Aviva and Aberdeen Standard spurn Deliveroo flotation over riders’ rights’, Money Marketing (25 March 2021).

65 ‘Deliveroo stumbles to London float with pricing at bottom end’, City AM (30 March 2021).

66 ‘It is, I understand, common ground that there can be considerable tension between members of the local community, the operators of the mine and local security forces in areas where a mine is set. Police suppression of protests occurs and again it is not unknown for that to involve considerable violence. As a result, the “Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights”, which is a set of principles designed to guide companies in maintaining the safety and security of their operations within an operating framework that encourages respect for human rights, have been adopted by many mining companies over the years including Xstrata. The principles have the backing of the United Nations … the very fact that lives were lost and serious injuries occurred is enough to weigh heavily in the balance even if the damages recoverable are relatively modest … the defendants subscribe to the Voluntary Principles to which I have referred and (not his words, but mine) something more than lip-service to those principles is demanded’ (Vilca & 21 Others v (1) Xstrata Ltd & Another [2016] EWHC 389 (QB para 12)).

67 Meeran, R, ‘Cape pays the price as justice prevails’, The Times (15 January 2002)Google Scholar.

68 Sithole & Others v Thor Chemicals Holdings & Anor [2000] WL 14211830.

69 Guerrero & Others v Monterrico Metals plc & Anor [2009] EWHC 2475 (QB).

70 Article 15(c) read with Article 4 Rome II Regulation.

71 Under Civil Procedure Rule 44, ‘the court will only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue’ and costs are proportionate ‘if they bear relationship to: the sums in issue in the proceedings; the complexity of the litigation: any wider factors involved in the proceedings, such as reputation or public importance’.

72 Bravo & Others v Amerisur Resources plc [2020] EWHC 125 (QB).

73 Kesabo v African Barrick Gold plc & NMGML [2013] EWHC 4045.

74 https://www.miningweekly.com/article/gemfields-agrees-settlement-of-58m-pertaining-to-claims-by-leigh-day-2019-01-29/rep_id:3650 (accessed 29 March 2021).

75 See for example the claim for the cost of clean-up sought against SPDC, the Nigerian subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, by the Bodo fishing community.

76 Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya 2020 SCC 5.