header-logo header-logo

08 November 2018 / Nicole Finlayson , Charlotte Hill
Issue: 7816 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Who’s liable?

Two out of three: the Court of Appeal rules in favour of a multinational parent company…again. Nicole Finlayson & Charlotte Hill report

The Court of Appeal has recently ruled for the second time—in AAA & others v Unilever Plc and Unilever Tea Kenya Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1532 that an English multinational parent company cannot be held liable for acts of its foreign-registered subsidiary.

This is the third judgment handed down in the past 12 months on this subject, with two out of the three sets of claimants failing to convince the Court of Appeal either that a duty of care should be imposed on the parent company, or that (consequently) the English courts should have jurisdiction. In each case ( Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1528 ; Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 191; and now Unilever ), the Court of Appeal carried out a detailed examination of the factual evidence including, critically, the degree of control that the parent company had over the acts and omissions of its

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll