abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

11 Sep 2018

Author:
Dalia Palombo, London School of Economics Fellow

Commentary: Two Critical Issues in the UK Business and Human Rights Litigation

The UK Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the case Lungowe v Vedanta  and is now considering whether or not to grant the same permission in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell...In these cases, the Supreme Court may provide further guidance as to two critical issues...that are fundamental to understand the implications of the parent company’s duty of care on business and human rights litigation.  First, it is unclear what the relationship between a parent company and a victim should be for the former to owe a duty of care towards the latter. Second,...what level of proximity is required between a parent and its subsidiary for the former to be accountable for the human rights abuses committed by the latter.  The answers to these questions may close or open the door to business and human rights litigation in the UK... The Supreme Court will face a difficult task to address these questions and will hopefully provide desired clarity as to the future of business and human rights litigation in the UK.