The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed.
Held: The appeals failed save that the UK was not the proper jurisdiction to bring the case. The claim was an abuse of EU law by the use of one defendant to notionally create a jurisdiction. There was a real and triable issue against Vedanata on the allegations. The defendant had offered to submit to the jurisdiction of Zambia, and there was a risk by granting UK jurisdiction of conflicting decisions. However there were undeniable difficulties in pursuing the case in Zambia particularly as regards group claims, and sufficiently experienced legal teams.
Judges:
Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs JJSC
Citations:
[2019] 2 WLR 1051, [2019] WLR(D) 241, [2019] UKSC 20, UKSC 2017/0185, [2020] AC 1045, [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 559, [2019] 1 CLC 619, [2019] BLR 327, [2019] BCC 520, [2019] Env LR 32, [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399, [2019] 3 All ER 1013
Links:
Bailii Summary, Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 19 Jan 15 am Video, SC 19 Jan 15 pm Video, SC 19 Jan 16 am Video, SC 19 Jan 16 pm Video
Statutes:
Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, art 4
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At TCC – Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources Plc and Another TCC 27-May-2016
‘The claimants are 1,826 Zambian citizens who are residents of four communities (Shimulala, Hellen, Kakosa and Hippo Pool) in the Chingola region of Zambia. On 31 July 2015, they commenced these proceedings alleging personal injury, damage to . .
Appeal from – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .
See Also – Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources Plc and Another CA 13-Oct-2017
Appeal against jurisdiction order . .
See Also – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. . .
Cited – Elmes and others v Vedanta Lisheen Mining Ltd and others 21-Feb-2014
High Court of Ireland . .
Cited – U and M Mining Zambia Ltd v Konkola Copper Mines Plc ComC 10-Oct-2014
Application on notice to continue world wide freezing orders obtained ex parte. The defendant alleged that the Claimant had not established a risk of dissipation, that it was not just and convenient to grant a WFO, and that the Claimant had failed . .
Cited – Konkola Copper Mines PLC v Nyasulu and Other 1-Apr-2015
Supreme Court of Zambia – Without any agreement otherwise it will be necessary for each individual claimant to prove both causation and loss, and to value their loss. . .
Cited – Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV ECJ 21-May-2015
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Article 6(1) . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Cited – Wenlock v Moloney CA 1965
The plaintiff alleged a conspiracy to deprive him of his shares and interest in a company. Each side filed affidavit evidence raising issues of fact. With no oral evidence or cross examination on the affidavits, the Master, after a four day hearing, . .
Cited – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – AAA and Others v Unilever Plc and Another CA 4-Jul-2018
Sales LJ said: ‘There is no special doctrine in the law of tort of legal responsibility on the part of a parent company in relation to the activities of its subsidiary, vis-a-vis persons affected by those activities. Parent and subsidiary are . .
Cited – Ogale Community and Others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another CA 14-Feb-2018
The claimants sought damages after widescale historic damage to areas of Nigeria by subsidiaries of the defendant. The defendant said that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear such a claim.
Held: The claimants had not established the . .
Cited – Rome v Punjab National Bank 1989
. .
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – OJSC VTB Bank v Parline Ltd and Others ComC 25-Oct-2013
Application by the second defendant to set aside service on her out of the jurisdiction in Russia. . .
Cited – Melzer v MF Global UK ECJ 16-May-2013
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict – Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act – Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others HL 24-Jul-1997
The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise . .
Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – Vava and Others v Anglo American South Africa Ltd QBD 16-Jul-2012
. .
Cited – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .
Cited – Chandler v Cape Plc CA 25-Apr-2012
. .
Cited – AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others PC 10-Mar-2011
Developing Law – Summary Procedures Very Limited
(Isle of Man) (‘Altimo’) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable in Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate . .
Cited – Deripaska v Cherney CA 31-Jul-2009
The court considered where the trial of the action should take place.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. Even though the rights sought to be protected were of a proprietary nature, where the rights could properly be said to have arisen under . .
Cited – Freeport plc v Arnoldsson ECJ 11-Oct-2007
(Opinion) The claimant sought to use article 6.1 of the Judgments Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 as a means of invoking the jurisdiction of the Swedish courts over a claim against an English company, because a Swedish company was a co-defendant. One of . .
Cited by:
See Also – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice, European, Torts – Other
Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.636997
