Agrégateur de flux

Le délai raisonnable prévu par l’article 5, § 3, de la Convention européenne s’applique en matière d’extradition. La chambre criminelle juge par ailleurs sérieuse une QPC mettant en cause le régime du placement sous écrou extraditionnel.

en lire plus

Les conditions selon lesquelles, en cas de jugement par défaut, une créance est réputée « incontestée », au sens de l’article 3 du règlement du 21 avril 2004, portant création d’un titre exécutoire européen pour les créances incontestées, doivent être déterminées de manière autonome, en vertu de ce seul règlement.

en lire plus

Portugal Telecom / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal de l’UE confirme l’illégalité de la clause de non-concurrence entre Portugal Telecom et Telefónica dans le cadre de l’acquisition de l’opérateur mobile brésilien Vivo par Telefónica

Portugal Telecom / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal de l’UE confirme l’illégalité de la clause de non-concurrence entre Portugal Telecom et Telefónica dans le cadre de l’acquisition de l’opérateur mobile brésilien Vivo par Telefónica

Dans le cadre de ses décisions prises en vertu du contrôle de la bonne application de la législation de l’Union, la Commission européenne a entamé le 16 juin 2016, de nouvelles phases de procédures d’infraction à l’encontre de la France dans le domaine de l’environnement et des transports routiers.

en lire plus

Following the United Kingdom’s popular vote to exit the European Union, a very timely book on the various legal, political and economic impacts of Brexit has just been released: “Britain Alone! The Implications and Consequences of United Kingdom Exit from the EU” (Kluwer Law International 2016), edited by Professor Patrick Birkinshaw (Institute of European Public Law, University of Hull) and Professor Andrea Biondi (King’s College London), covers practical topics such as the options available to the UK, the effects of Brexit on the constitutional level, the existing and potential role of jurisprudence, post-Brexit residence and labour rights as well as financial and economic governance.

The table of contents reads as follows:

Introduction
Patrick Birkinshaw & Andrea Biondi.

Part I Constitutional Issues

CHAPTER 1 Britain Alone Constitutionally: Brexit and Restitutio in Integrum
Patrick Birkinshaw & Mike Varney.

CHAPTER 2 A Tale of Two Referendums: Scotland, the UK and Europe
Stephen Tierney & Katie Boyle.

CHAPTER 3 ‘Britain Alone’: A View from Northern Ireland
Gordon Anthony.

CHAPTER 4 ‘Brexit’ and Welsh Devolution: The Likely Impact
Mike Varney.

CHAPTER 5 Responsibility, Voice and Exit: Britain Alone?
Paul Craig.

Part II Managing Alone?

CHAPTER 6 Which Options would Be Available for the United Kingdom in the Case of a Withdrawal from the EU?
Jean-Claude Piris.

CHAPTER 7 The UK and the World: Environmental Law
Ioanna Hadjiyianni.

CHAPTER 8 The EU’s External Relations: A Question of Competence
Daniel Denman.

CHAPTER 9 Judicial Protection and the UK’s Opt-Outs: Is Britain Alone in the CJEU?
Maria Kendrick.

CHAPTER 10 Criminal Law
John R. Spencer.

CHAPTER 11 From EU Citizens to Third-Country Nationals: The Legacy of Polydor
Marja-Liisa Öberg.

CHAPTER 12 Britain Alone! The Implications and Consequences of United Kingdom Exit from the European Union: Social Policies
Aileen McColgan.

CHAPTER 13 The Death of Social Europe
Keith D. Ewing.

CHAPTER 14 The United Kingdom without the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Putting Down the Dog That Did Not Bark?
Kieron Beal QC.

CHAPTER 15 State Aid Control, Government Spending and the Virtue of Loyalty
Andrea Biondi.

CHAPTER 16 Differentiated Integration and the Single Supervisory Mechanism: Which Way Forward for the European Banking Authority?
Pierre Schammo.

For further information, please see the publisher’s website.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 2 – Chambre 1, 24 novembre 2015

Le 24 juin 2016, à l’annonce des résultats officiels du référendum britannique sur la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l’Union européenne (Brexit), les présidents des institutions de l’Union ont publié une déclaration commune dans laquelle ils regrettent le choix du peuple britannique mais le respecte.

en lire plus

Au travers de sa décision rendue le 21 juin 2016 sur le programme d’opérations monétaires sur titre de la Banque centrale européenne, la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale a redéfini son rôle dans le dialogue avec la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE).

en lire plus

Prof. Burkhard Hess and Prof. Marta Requejo-Isidro, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg

One of the major misunderstandings of the Brexit is that it won’t influence London’s importance as a major place of dispute resolution in Europe. Up until now, the adverse consequences of leaving the European Judicial Area have been insufficiently discussed. A first seminar organized by the British Institute for International and Comparative Law and the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law in May illustrated that the adverse legal consequences will start immediately, even within the transitional period of two years foreseen by Article 50 of the EU Treaty. We would like to briefly summarize the main findings of this seminar which can also be found (as a video) at the websites of the MPI Luxembourg and of BIICL.

Regarding private international and procedural law, all EU instruments on common rules for jurisdiction, parallel proceedings and cross-border enforcement will cease to exist after the transitional period, not only in areas such as insolvency and family matters, but also in the core areas of civil and commercial matters. Judgments given by English courts will no longer profit from the free movement of judgments. Their recognition and enforcement will depend on (outdated) bilateral agreements which were concluded between the 1930 and 1960s. As there are only six bilateral agreements, the autonomous, piecemeal provisions of EU Member States’ regimes regarding the recognition of the judgments of third States will apply. Of course, there might be negotiations on a specific regime between the Union and the United Kingdom, but the EU Commission might be well advised to tackle the more pressing problems of the Union (i.e. the refugee crisis where no solidarity is to be expected from the UK) instead of losing time and strength in bilateral negotiations.

From the European perspective, there is now a need to carefully evaluate the benefits of a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom on issues of private international law. The main interest of the Union won’t be to maintain or to strengthen London’s dominant position in the European judicial market: EU Member States might equally provide for modern and highly-qualified legal services ready to attract commercial litigants and high-value litigation & arbitration. Examples in this respect are The Netherlands and Sweden. In addition, there is a genuine interest of the Union to see mandatory EU law applied in disputes related to the Internal Market by courts operating within its regulatory framework. A perfect example in this respect, as pointed out by Dr. Matteo Gargantini, – former senior research fellow at the MPI Luxembourg – is provided by the directives concerning the financial markets. Here, the so-called MiFID II provides for a dense regulatory framework where a clear distinction is made between EU Member States and third States. In the future, the United Kingdom will qualify a third State in this respect. This entails that jurisdiction and arbitration clauses providing for the jurisdiction of English courts and/or for London as a seat of arbitration cannot be agreed. The pertinent provision (Article 46 § 6) of the MiFID II reads as follows:

“Third-country firms providing services or performing activities in accordance with this Article shall, before providing any service or performing any activity in relation to a client established in the Union, offer to submit any disputes relating to those services or activities to the jurisdiction of a court or arbitral tribunal in a Member State.”

This provision only applies to professional investors. For retail investors, Member States can even mandate that the investment firm establishes a branch in their territory, which of course would impact jurisdiction (also in the light of limitations to jurisdiction agreement vis-à-vis consumers). Here, Article Art. 39 MiFID II says:

“A Member State may require that a third-country firm intending to provide investment services or perform investment activities with or without any ancillary services to retail clients or to professional clients within the meaning of Section II of Annex II in its territory establish a branch in that Member State.”

These provisions entail direct and immediate consequences. Jurisdiction and arbitration clauses in contracts will apply to future controversies, and as such, their validity will be scrutinized at the moment when a dispute arises. An agreement made today to establish London as the place of dispute resolution will no longer guarantee the validity of that respective clause in two years’ time. In other words, law firms would be well advised to no longer agree to these clauses as their validity will be challenged in every civil court within the European Union. Sending anti-suit injunctions abroad won’t help either: firstly, their recognition by the courts of EU Member States is not guaranteed (and will depend on the fragmented autonomous laws of EU Member States). Secondly, mandatory EU law (the pertinent articles of MiFID II, for example) will certainly forbid any recognition within the Union. As a result, parties will lose additional money for unnecessary satellite litigation. Finally, the ratification of the Hague Choice of Court Convention or the Lugano Convention will not provide a means to overcome the problem as the MiFID will apply independently from any international framework. This example demonstrates that there might be much more interest on the English side in negotiating with the Union than the other way around. It also shows that there is a need to consider most carefully the immediate consequences of the Brexit.

In a plenary vote, the European Parliament has formally approved  the two proposals on property regimes for international married couples or registered partnerships (see our earlier post) on 23 June 2016 (click here for the press release). The proposals will now need to be formally adopted by the 18 participating member states and will then be published in the Official Journal of the EU. They will apply in full 30 months and 20 days after publication.

In un’ordinanza del 21 aprile 2016, il Tribunale di Milano ha individuato il parametro fattuale a cui ancorare la sussistenza della giurisdizione rispetto ad una domanda di sequestro conservativo di crediti presso terzi.

La vicenda alla base della pronucia puó essere riassunta come segue.

Il creditore procedente, sulla base di una sentenza della High Court of Justice inglese, dichiarata esecutiva in Italia in base al regolamento n. 44/2001 (Bruxelles I), chiedeva al giudice italiano il sequestro conservativo di un credito vantato dalla propria parte debitrice nei confronti di un terzo, residente a Montecarlo ma domiciliato a Milano.

In ragione della parrallela pendenza di un procedimento di opposizione avverso l’ordinanza di exequatur, instaurato dal debitore, l’attività esecutiva espletabile sulla base del titolo estero era infatti limitata ai soli provvedimenti di carattere conservativo (art. 47, par. 3, del Regolamento Bruxelles I).  Similmente, l’attuale art. 44 par.1, lett. a), del regolamento n. 1215/2012 (Bruxelles I bis) prevede che, in pendenza di una domanda di diniego dell’esecuzione, l’autorità dello Stato Membro a cui è richiesta l’esecuzione possa, su istanza di parte, “limitare il procedimento di esecuzione ai provvedimenti cautelari”.

Nel caso in esame, la richiesta di sequestro riguardava, in particolare, le somme dovute dal terzo (promissario acquirente) alla parte debitrice nel procedimento in esame (promittente venditore) sulla base di un contratto preliminare di compravendita di immobili, e le somme già versate dal terzo sulla base del contratto medesimo.

Il Tribunale milanese, rilevata innanzitutto la necessità di verificare la sussistenza della giurisdizione italiana rispetto alla domanda di sequestro conservativo, individua la norma di riferimento nell’art. 22 del citato regolamento n. 44/2001 (corrispondente all’attuale art. 24, par. 5, del regolamento Bruxelles I bis). Questo prevede, “in materia di esecuzione delle decisioni”, la competenza esclusiva dei “giudici dello Stato Membro nel cui territorio ha luogo l’esecuzione”.

Alla luce del carattere esclusivo di tale capo di giurisdizione, il giudice procedente ritiene di escludere, nel caso di specie, la rilevanza di una qualsivoglia accettazione tacita di giurisdizione desumibile dal fatto che il terzo sia comparso in udienza senza nulla eccepire sul punto.

Al contrario, secondo il giudice, la verifica circa la sussistenza della giurisdizione italiana deve ispirarsi ad una lettura teleologicamente orientata della suddetta regola di giurisdizione, che tenga conto della necessità di concretizzare il principio di prossimità rispetto una fattispecie, come quella in esame, in cui l’oggetto dell’attività esecutiva richiesta – il credito – presenta una natura immateriale che ne rende difficile la localizzazione.

Su queste basi, il Tribunale ritiene di disattendere la ricostruzione proposta dalle Sezioni unite della Corte di cassazione nella sentenza 5 Novembre 1981 n. 5827, con cui si ancorava la giurisdizione in materia di esecuzione delle decisioni al luogo in cui è sorta o deve essere adempiuta l’obbligazione. Parimenti inadeguato è parso al giudice il suggerimento della dottrina di localizzare l’attività esecutiva da espletare presso il terzo al luogo ove questi si trova, essendo egli il vero soggetto passivo dell’esecuzione.

Secondo l’ordinanza qui segnalata, nessuna di queste soluzioni è in grado garantire in misura sufficiente il rispetto di quei principi – in particolare, prossimità ed efficiente amministrazione della giustizia sotto il profilo istruttorio – che, per consolidata giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia, devono guidare l’interprete nella localizzazione della fattispecie ai fini delle regole uniformi di giurisdizione stabilite dal Regolamento Bruxelles I. La sussistenza della giurisdizione può semmai essere affermata soltanto sulla base di una complessiva valutazione del rapporto dal quale il credito da sequestrare deriva. In particolare, la presenza di un promissario acquirente e di un promittente venditore, entrambi domiciliati in Italia, che concludono – a Milano – un contratto preliminare avente ad oggetto immobili siti in Italia consente, nel caso specifico, di ritenere che il rapporto tra debitore e terzo sia sottoposto alla giurisdizione del giudice italiano.

Quanto alle difese allegate dall’asserito debitore, l’eccezione di prescrizione del diritto vantato dal creditore sequestrante, avanzata in sede di opposizione alla dichiarazione di esecutività e riproposta davanti al giudice adito con la domanda di sequestro, è ritenuta da quest’ultimo non proponibile nel procedimento in esame, ma solo, eventualmente, nel successivo procedimento esecutivo vero e proprio. Tale eccezione, nota il giudice, è tuttavia di dubbia ammissibilità anche in sede di opposizione all’exequatur, posto che essa non figura tra la lista (esaustiva) dei motivi per cui il giudice può, ai sensi dell’art. 45 del regolamento Bruxelles I, revocare l’exequatur.

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) a jugé, dans une décision du 17 mai 2016 (communiquée le 9 juin 2016), que la déchéance du régime de faveur français des marchands de biens ne constitue pas une peine au sens de l’article 7 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (pas de peine sans loi).

en lire plus

Ekaterina Aristova, PhD in Law Candidate, University of Cambridge authored this post on ‘Tort litigation Against Transnational Corporations: UK court will hear a case for overseas human rights abuses’. She welcomes comments.

On 27 May 2016, Mr Justice Coulson, sitting as a judge in the Technology and Construction Court, allowed a legal claim against UK-based mining corporation Vedanta Resources Plc (“Vedanta”) and its Zambian subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (“KCP”) to be tried in the UK courts. These proceedings, brought by Zambian citizens alleging serious environmental pollution in their home country, is an example of the so-called “foreign direct liability” cases which have emerged in several jurisdictions in the last twenty years. Other cases currently pending in the UK courts include a claim by a Colombian farmer alleging environmental pollution caused by Equion Energia Ltd (formerly BP Exploration), two environmental claims arising from oil spillages against Shell, litigation against iron ore producer Tonkolili Iron Ore Ltd for alleged human rights violations in Sierra Leone and a dispute between Peruvian citizens and Xtrata Ltd involving grave human rights abuses of persons involved in environmental protest against the mining operations.

Transnational corporations (“TNCs”) have frequently been involved in various forms of corporate wrongdoing in many parts of the world. Severe abuses, reported by non-governmental organisations, range from murder to the violation of socio-economic rights. To date there has been only modest success in developing theoretical and practical solutions for legal enforcement of international corporate accountability. In the absence of an international legally binding instrument addressing human rights obligations of private corporations and the various regulatory problems in host states, a few jurisdictions have evidenced a growing trend of civil liability cases against TNCs. These cases are examples of private claims brought by the victims of overseas corporate abuse against parent companies in the courts of the home states. While US courts continue to debate issues of jurisdiction over extraterritorial human rights corporate abuses, the UK courts have recently being consistent in allowing claims against local parent companies of TNCs. The case against Vedanta is the most recent example of this trend.

A.   Facts of the case

On 31 July 2015, 1,826 Zambian citizens, residents of four communities in the Chingola region, commenced proceedings against Vedanta and KCM in the Technology and Construction Court of the High Court of England, alleging personal injury, damage to property, loss of income, and loss of amenity and enjoyment of land. The majority of the claimants are farmers who rely on the land and local rivers as their primary source of livehood. They also rely on the local waterways as the main source of clean water for drinking, washing, bathing and irrigating farms. The claimants’ communities are located close to the Nchanga Copper Mine that is operated by KCM, an indirect subsidiary of Vedanta. The mine commenced operations in 1937, but Vedanta acquired a controlling share in KCM in 2004. KCM operates a mine as a holder of a mining licence in accordance with the local legislative requirements that operations be run through a locally domiciled subsidiary. The claimants allege that from 2005 they have been suffering from pollution and environmental damage caused by the mine’s operations. They allege that the discharge of harmful effluent in the waterways has endangered their livelihoods and physical, economic and social wellbeing.

In September and October 2015, both defendants applied for a declaration that the English court does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. The defendants argued that Zambia was an appropriate forum to try the claims since it is the place where the claimants reside and where the damage is said to have occurred. In the course of a three-day hearing in April 2016 both parties presented their arguments. The judgement allowing a legal claim against both defendants to be tried in England was delivered on 27 May 2016.

B.   Jurisdiction over the Parent Company (Vedanta)

The claimants argued that Vedanta breached the duty of care it owed to them of ensuring that KCM’s mining operations did not cause harm to the environment or local communities. The allegations are based on evidence that the parent company exercised a high level of control and direction over the mining operations of its subsidiary and over the subsidiary’s compliance with health, safety and environmental standards (para 31). In their argument, the claimants relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Chandler v Cape, which recognised the possibility of parent company responsibility for injuries of its subsidiary’s employee and set a test for the establishment of the parent company’s duty of care. Based on their submission on the breach of the duty of care by Vedanta, the claimants argued that the English court has jurisdiction over the parent company “as of right” by virtue of Article 4 of the Brussels I Regulation recast (“Brussels I”). Vedanta claimed that the court should apply the forum non conveniens argument and stay proceedings in favour of Zambia. Furthermore, the parent company claimed that a case against Vedanta is “a device in order to ensure that the real claim, against, KCM, is litigated in the United Kingdom rather than in Zambia” (para 51). Finally, the parent company sought to establish that there is either no real issue between Vedanta and claimants or, alternatively, the claim is weak and it should impact court’s decision on the jurisdiction over the case (para 52).

The judicial response to the arguments of the parties was straightforward and explicit. It was held that Article 4 provided clear grounds to sue Vedanta as a UK-domiciled company in the UK (para 53). Mr Justice Coulson placed considerable weight on the decision of the Court of Justice of European Union (“CJEU”) in Owusu v Jackson preventing UK courts from declining jurisdiction on the basis of the forum non conveniens, when the defendant is domiciled in the UK. In the view of the judge the different facts of the present case and any criticism of CJEU’s reasoning did not make Owusu judgement less binding (para 71).  Finally, the judge considered the claimants’ arguments on the overall control exercised by Vedanta over Zambian mining operations and ruled that there is a real issue to be tried between the claimants and Vedanta (para 77). It was recognised that, although the claimants’ argument against Vedanta was a challenging one, the pleadings set out a careful and detailed case on the breach of duty of care which was already supported by some evidence (para 128).

C.   Jurisdiction over the foreign subsidiary (KCM)

KCM also challenged jurisdiction of the UK court by applying for an order setting aside service of the claim form on it out of the jurisdiction. The defendant company claimed that the entire focus of the litigation was in Zambia, and the claim against Vedanta was “an illegitimate hook being used to permit claims to be brought [in the UK] which would otherwise not be heard in the UK” (para 93). In response, the claimants argued that it was reasonable to try claims against both companies in the UK and, alternatively, the claimants would not have access to justice in Zambia (para 94).

Once again the decision of the court did not leave any ambiguity about the jurisdiction of an English court to hear the case about Zambian operations. It was first held that the claim against KCM undoubtedly had a real prospect of success (para 99). It was then established that the claim against Vedanta was arguable under both English and Zambian law (para 124).  Furthermore, the judge ruled that it was reasonable for the court to try the claim against Vedanta, who, as a holding company of the group, had “the necessary financial standing to pay out any damages that are recovered” (para 146). Therefore, it was concluded that KCM was a necessary and proper party to the claim against Vedanta (para 147).

Finally, the court unconditionally established that England is the proper forum in which to bring the claim against KCM in accordance with the tests established by The Spiliada decision and Connelly v RTZ case. The judge decided that the assessment of England as the appropriate forum should be considered in light of the claims against Vedanta (para 160). Following this conclusion, and the earlier finding of the real issue to be tried between the claimants and Vedanta, it was held that England is an appropriate place to hear the claims against two legal entities of the major international company (para 163). Moreover, it was established that the claimants would not obtain access to justice in Zambia should the trial take place there (para 184). In particular, the judge took into account evidence that the Zambian legal system is not well developed (para 176); that the vast majority of the claimants would be unable to afford legal representation (para 178); that there was an insufficient number of local lawyers able to proceed with a mass tort action of such scale (para 186); and that KCM will be likely to prolong the case (para 195).

D.   Significance of the decision

The Vedanta decision represents another significant achievement for foreign victims and their lawyers struggling with the jurisdictional hurdles of foreign direct liability cases in the courts of the home states. Following decisions in such cases as Connelly v RTZ, Lubbe v Cape and Ngcobo v Thor Chemicals, the present case contributes to the development of the law relating to the jurisdiction of English courts over foreign violations of human rights by UK-based TNCs. First, the decision clearly confirmed the mandatory application of Article 4 in tort litigation concerning extraterritorial abuses of TNCs. The first tort liability claims in England were intensely litigated for several years on the forum non conveniens issue. However, the trial judge’s insistence that Owusu decision constitutes a binding authority for all cases involving defendants domiciled in UK, now makes it more difficult for defendant corporations to mount arguments over inadmissibility of the extraterritorial adjudicatory jurisdiction over corporate overseas activities.

Secondly, although at this stage of the proceedings the judge did not consider the case on the merits, there is nonetheless acceptance that the parent company may be held responsible for the human rights abuses committed to the members of the community at the place where the subsidiary runs its operations. The judge considered the claimants’ “single enterprise” submission about Vedanta being “the real architects of the environmental pollution” (para 78). Moreover, it was recognised that the argument that “Vedanta who are making millions of pounds out of the mine, […] should be called to account […] has some force” (para 78). The acknowledgement of the economic reality of the TNCs and the decisive role of the parent corporation in the overseas operations of the subsidiary speaks in favour of the increasing awareness about the legal gaps in the international corporate accountability. However, a final determination of the liability of TNCs awaits in future decisions.

Another set of issues is raised by the court’s reliance on the decision in Chandler v Cape. Despite the fact that the case did not have any foreign element, some commentators have already concluded that the ruling may have an influence in the context of TNCs. The reasoning of Mr Justice Coulson has left no doubts that Chandler should be considered as an authority for the resolution of the tort liability cases involving foreign operations of UK-based parent companies. Moreover, it was once again confirmed that invoking duty of care is strategically beneficial for the claimants since: (1) the claim against the parent company provides the required connecting factor of the claim with the UK; and (2) framing the case through the duty of care doctrine provides a means by which the extraterritoriality concerns may be addressed. These arguments are consistent with the judge’s finding that arguing breach of the duty of care by the parent company “could have a direct impact on jurisdiction grounds” (para 44). This approach and claimants’ success may result in an increase in foreign direct liability cases in the UK courts.

The judgement also provides interesting material for the analysis with respect to the evaluation of the patterns of corporate behaviour in the host states and weak remedies available for the victims of abuses in their states of residence. The judge put considerable weight on the findings about KCM’s financial position. Evidence submitted by the claimants provided that there was a real risk that KCM on its own would be unable to meet the claims (para 24). Indeed, undercapitalisation of the subsidiary remains a significant risk for claimants in the tort litigation against TNCs. The limited liability principle in corporate law creates an incentive for shareholders to engage in high risk projects, which plausibly have the possibility to result in moral hazard. Specifically for mass tort actions involving TNCs, the obtainment of final judgment against a subsidiary with no real assets will effectively mean losing the case. By establishing the case against the parent company, the claimants automatically target a pool of assets that would not otherwise be available were litigation to be commenced against the subsidiary in the host state. The compensational nature of the foreign direct liability claims is what makes them most valuable for the claimants

To date English courts have been consistent in treating the parent company and the subsidiaries as distinct legal entities in the context of allocating responsibility within the corporate groups. Similarly, the case law did not derogate from the conventional concept of corporate legal form. However, the fact that Mr Justice Coulson considered the financial position of the subsidiary as raising “legitimate concerns” (para 82) while deciding on the jurisdiction over the parent company, coupled with the increasing number of cases against parent companies allowed in the courts of their home states, suggests that there may be a shift from the traditional approach to the nature of the corporate groups to the more realistic reflection of the economic reality of these complex structures.

Finally, the decision in Vedanta case to restrain from the policy judgement on the assessment of the Zambian legal system (para 198) is in line with the previous practice of the UK courts. First, in Connelly v RTZ, the House of Lords avoided making any assessment on the ability of the South African justice system to guarantee the claimants access to justice. Instead, its judgment focused on the personal ability of the claimant to obtain financial assistance of pursuing complex and expensive litigation. Later, in the Lubbe v Cape the House of Lords again decided to refrain from considering the influence of such public interest factors in the private interests of the parties and the ends of justice. Similarly, Mr Justice Coulson held that “criticism of the Zambian legal system” was not “the intention or purpose” of the judgement and, therefore, could not be regarded as “colonial condescension”. Nevertheless, findings on the court about weak remedies available for the claimants in Zambia have been already questioned by Zambian President Edgar Lungu, which again raises the issue of judicial imperialism of the developed states through exercise of the extraterritorial jurisdiction over overseas operations of local TNCs.

Whether the English courts will take the ground breaking decision to rule that the parent company should be held liable for the overseas operations of its subsidiary is open to debate. It may not even be answered in this case, with settlement remaining a real possibility.  Martin Day, a partner at the firm representing the Zambian farmers, has already called for the defendants to “engage in meaningful discussions and try to resolve these claims”. An out-of-court settlement will again leave legal practitioners, academics and human rights activists without a single UK precedent on parent company liability in tort litigation against TNCs.