Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:32:34.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vedanta v Lungowe and Kiobel v Shell: The Implications for Parent Company Accountability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2019

Marilyn CROSER ,
Martyn DAY ,
Mariëtte VAN HUIJSTEE Open the ORCID record for Mariëtte VAN HUIJSTEE [Opens in a new window]  and
Channa SAMKALDEN
Marilyn CROSER
Affiliation:
Director, Core Coalition.
Martyn DAY
Affiliation:
Senior Partner, Leigh Day.
Mariëtte VAN HUIJSTEE
Affiliation:
Senior Researcher, Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen (SOMO).
Channa SAMKALDEN
Affiliation:
Partner, Prakken d’Óliveira.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

duty of carejurisdictionparent companyShellVedanta
Type
Developments in the Field
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 130 - 136
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

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.)

References

1 Blackburn, Daniel, ‘Removing Barriers to Justice: How a Treaty on Business and Human Rights Could Improve Access to Remedy for Victims’ (Amsterdam: SOMO, 2017)Google Scholar; Amnesty International et al, ‘Creating a Paradigm Shift: Legal Solutions to Improve Access to Remedy for Corporate Human Rights Abuse’ (4 September 2017), https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/AI_BHRRC_Elaborating_Solutions_Report_Template_1%20Sep%202017.pdf (accessed 28 August 2019).

2 Vedanta Resources PLC v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20.

3 Esther Kiobel v Royal Dutch Shell PLC [2019] ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:4233.

4 Axel Marx et al, Access to Legal Remedies for Victims of Corporate Human Rights Abuses in Third Countries (February 2019), 34, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603475/EXPO_STU(2019)603475_EN.pdf (accessed 28 August 2019).

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Leigh Day, ‘Supreme Court Rules Zambian Villagers’ Case Against Vedanta to be Heard in English Courts’ (10 April 2019), https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2019/April-2019/Supreme-Court-rules-Zambian-villagers-case-against (accessed 28 August 2019).

8 Ibid.

9 Vedanta Resources PLC, note 2, para 87.

10 Ibid, paras 89 and 100.

11 Ms Kiobel’s earlier case against Shell, filed in the United States in 2002, came to an end when the US Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it.

12 Amnesty International, ‘Nigeria/Netherlands: Shell Ruling “A Vital Step Towards Justice”’ (1 May 2019), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/05/nigerianetherlandsshell-ruling-a-vital-step-towards-justice/ (accessed 5 September 2019). The judgement is available in English at: http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:6670.

13 Friday Alfred Akpan and Vereniging Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell PLC and another, District Court of the Hague [2013] ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2013:BY9854; Court of Appeal of the Hague [2015], http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:3586 (also in English).

14 Filip Gregor et al, ‘The EU’s Business: Recommended Actions for the EU and its Member States to Ensure Access to Judicial Remedy for Business-Related Human Rights Impacts’ (December 2014), https://corporate-responsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/eu_business.pdf (accessed 5 September 2019).

15 [2018] EWCA Civ 191.

16 The Court of Appeal ordered Shell to disclose the requested documents, as it considered that it could not be ruled out that the parent company could be held liable in view of the relevant case law. The court is yet to deliver its judgement on the merits. Friday Alfred Akpan, note 11.

17 Vedanta Resources PLC, note 2, para 44.

18 Ibid, paras 52–53.

19 Ibid, para 61.

20 Gabrielle Holly, ‘Zambian Farmers can Take Vedanta to Court over Water Pollution. What are the Legal Implications?’ (10 April 2019), https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/zambian-farmers-can-take-vedanta-to-court-over-water-pollution-what-are-the-legal-implications (accessed 5 September 2019); Robert McCorquodale, ‘Vedanta v. Lungowe Symposium: Duty of Care of Parent Companies’ (18 April 2019), http://opiniojuris.org/2019/04/18/symposium-duty-of-care-of-parent-companies/ (accessed 5 September 2019).

21 Marx et al, note 4, 112.

22 Ibid.

23 United Nations Human Rights Council, ‘Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises With Respect to Human Rights’, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/wgtranscorp/pages/igwgontnc.aspx (accessed 5 September 2019).

24 United Nations Human Rights Council: Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group Chairmanship, ‘Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises: Revised Draft’ (16 July 2019), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/OEIGWG_RevisedDraft_LBI.pdf (accessed 28 August 2019).

25 Space does not allow us to discuss the relationship between human rights due diligence and duty of care, but see Cees van Dam et al, ‘Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights vis-à-vis Legal Duty of Care’ in José, JuanRubio, Álvarez and Yiannibas, Katerina (eds), Human Rights in Business Removal of Barriers to Access to Justice in the European Union ( London: Routledge, 2017), 119Google Scholar, 138.