Abstract
Foreign direct liability litigation against businesses is still a growing trend in European domestic courts, going on for over two decades.1 With absent effective remedies in host states, victims of human rights abuses committed by transnational corporations’ subsidiaries try to get access to remedy in the courts of the home states of the parent companies. A crucial factor for whether such cases can succeed, is the viability of the claims against the parent companies allegedly involved in the abuses. The principal legal route that victims have used to hold parent companies liable is through common law negligence claims.
Highlights
Foreign direct liability litigation against businesses is still a growing trend in European domestic courts, going on for over two decades.[1]
The principal legal route that victims have used to hold parent companies liable is through common law negligence claims
The court ruled that Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary (SPDC) was liable for damage caused as a result of two oil spills in the Niger Delta, and held that SPDC’s parent company (RDS) owed a limited duty of care to the victims
Summary
Foreign direct liability litigation against businesses is still a growing trend in European domestic courts, going on for over two decades.[1]. A month earlier, the Court of Appeal of The Hague gave its judgement in the case of Four Nigerian Farmers and Stichting Milieudefensie v Shell.[3] The court ruled that Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary (SPDC) was liable for damage caused as a result of two oil spills in the Niger Delta, and held that SPDC’s parent company (RDS) owed a limited duty of care to the victims. This piece discusses these two cases, assesses their contribution to the viability of parent company liability claims, and considers some of the challenges that still remain for claimants
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have