Court of Appeal confirms jurisdiction over Zambia environmental damage claims against UK-domiciled parent and local subsidiary

by Dentons


The Court of Appeal last week upheld jurisdiction over claims by Zambian citizens arising from discharges from a copper mine.  In Lungowe & Ors v. Vedanta Resources Plc & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1528, Jackson, Simon and Asplin LJJ dismissed appeals by Vedanta Resources Plc (a UK-domiciled company) and Konkola Copper Mines (KCM), its Zambian subsidiary, against a decision of Coulson J allowing the claims to proceed.

The judgment demonstrates the potential for parent companies to be held liable for environmental and human rights claims by local communities in respect of their foreign subsidiaries' projects.  This is particularly prevalent where they assist the subsidiary in relation to the issue underlying the claim. Where such proceedings are brought, the English courts will not have discretion to refuse to hear them. The courts may well also accept jurisdiction over claims against the foreign subsidiary, even where those claims have little other connection with the UK beyond the parent company's nationality.  

UK companies with foreign subsidiaries operating projects giving rise to a high risk of human rights violations will see the decision as yet another reminder of the need for preventative measures to avoid such violations on the part of their subsidiaries.

Jurisdiction over Vedanta pursuant to the Brussels Recast Regulation

The claims against Vedanta, a major global mining company listed on the LSE, are based in negligence. The claimants allege that Vedanta owed them a duty of care on the basis of the close connection between Vedanta and KCM, and Vedanta's assumed knowledge and superior expertise regarding health, safety and environmental protection, upon which it should have known KCM would rely.  KCM is separately accused of negligence, trespass and liability under various Zambian statutes. 

The claimants argued the English courts had jurisdiction over the claim due to Vedanta's nationality: Article 4 of the Recast Brussels Regulation gives the courts of an EU Member State jurisdiction over claims against persons "domiciled" in that Member State. In the 2005 case of Owusu v. Jackson, the ECJ held that, where a court has jurisdiction under this article, it has no discretion to stay proceedings. This was the case even if the courts of another (non-EU) state were clearly more appropriate to hear the case (the doctrine of forum non conveniens). Thus, the claimants in this case argued, the English courts could not refuse to hear their case against Vedanta on the basis that the claims were more closely connected with Zambia. 

Vedanta argued that the ECJ's reasoning in Owusu was flawed and should not be followed. Moreover, it was not intended to apply where non-EU claimants use the existence of a claim against an EU-domiciled party as a device to ensure their real claim (i.e. against a subsidiary) is litigated in that jurisdiction. 

The Court of Appeal, like Coulson J, dismissed Vedanta's objections. It reaffirmed the binding nature of Owusu (a decision considered by many, including Coulson J in this case, to be "suspect"), and allowed the claims against Vedanta to proceed. 

Jurisdiction over KCM as a "necessary and proper party"

The claimants argued that KCM is a "necessary and proper party" to the claim against Vedanta. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may grant permission to serve a claim on a foreign entity where: (1) there is a real issue between the claimant and the (primary or "anchor") defendant which it is reasonable for the court to try; (2) the other person on whom the claimant wants to serve the claim form is a "necessary and proper party" to that claim; and (3) England and Wales is the proper place to bring the claim. 

On the first point, the Court of Appeal agreed there was a real issue to be tried between the claimants and Vedanta. It rehearsed the three-part test of foreseeability, proximity and remoteness in Caparo Industries v. Dickman to determine whether Vedanta owed the local citizens any duties.  The fact that Vedanta is KCM's holding company would not alone make it arguable that Vedanta owed such duties. The claimants had to establish "additional circumstances" to show this was appropriate. Simon LJ reviewed the key authorities and considered it may be appropriate to impose such a duty of care where:

  • the parent has taken direct responsibility for devising a material health and safety policy the adequacy of which is the subject of the claim, or controls the operations which give rise to the claim;
  • the businesses of a parent and subsidiary are in a relevant respect the same and  the parent has or ought to have superior knowledge on some relevant aspect of health and safety in the particular industry; or
  • the subsidiary's system of work is unsafe as the parent knew or ought to have known, and the parent knew or ought to have foreseen the subsidiary would have relied upon that superior knowledge.

The Court of Appeal held Coulson J had been entitled to conclude there was a real issue to be tried. The claimants had relied upon inter alia the following factors:

  • a report issued by Vedanta, entitled "Embedding Sustainability", stressed that the oversight of all Vedanta's subsidiaries rests with the board of Vedanta itself and expressly referred to problems with discharges into water, and to the particular problem at the mine in Zambia;
  • under a management and shareholders' agreement, Vedanta was under a contractual obligation to provide KCM with various services of relevance to the issues that had arisen;
  • Vedanta provided environmental and technical information and health, safety and environmental training across the corporate group; 
  • Vedanta's financial support for KCM amounted to approximately US$3 billion; and
  • Vedanta had made various public statements emphasising its commitment to address environmental risks and technical shortcomings in KCM's mining infrastructure. 

The Court of Appeal also concluded that, on balance, England and Wales was the proper place to hear the claims against KCM. The court had no difficulty in concluding (as Coulson J had) that, absent the claim against its parent, Zambia would have been the proper place to sue KCM, since all of the underlying events occurred in Zambia and there was no other connection with England.  However, the fact that the claim against Vedanta was to be heard in England meant the English courts were the correct place for the claim against KCM also. This was because it would be inappropriate for the two claims – involving virtually identical facts, witnesses and documents – to be conducted in parallel. 


This decision provides useful clarification of the relevant factors determining when parent companies may be found liable for environmental and human rights violations caused by their foreign subsidiaries. While parents will not automatically owe duties of care towards those affected by their subsidiaries' activities, courts will scrupulously examine the relationship between the companies and the role played by the parent in relation to the issues underlying the claim.

The fact-specific nature of this question has given rise to varying outcomes in proceedings currently before the English courts. For instance, in Okpabi and others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (also under appeal), jurisdiction was refused on the basis that there was no close relationship between parent and subsidiary. As such, and particularly due to the uncertainty this causes, UK companies with subsidiaries operating in high-risk jurisdictions will be well advised to take strong actions to avoid and mitigate the risk of adverse human rights impacts by their foreign subsidiaries.   

The case also demonstrates the likely frequency with which the English courts will exercise jurisdiction over such claims against both UK- and foreign-domiciled companies. It does not appear to be open to UK parent companies to rely on Owusu to avoid jurisdiction, irrespective of the merits of the claims against them. This in turn may open the door to the English courts' jurisdiction over an increasing number of claims against foreign subsidiaries, even where the facts have little or no connection with England and Wales.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dentons | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Dentons on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.