AAA & Ors v Unilever Plc & Anor [2017] EWHC 371 (QB) (27 February 2017)

AAA & Ors v Unilever Plc & Anor [2017] EWHC 371 (QB) (27 February 2017)

The foreign act of state doctrine does not bar the claims as adjudication does not require the court to rule on the legality of acts of the Kenyan state. The English court cannot stay the claim against D1 on forum non conveniens grounds due to the Brussels Regulation. There is no real issue to be tried against D1 as the pleaded duty of care is not arguable on the facts and law; the claim against D1 is bound to fail. The court has jurisdiction over D2 but the claims against D2 are to be determined under Kenyan law.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 371
Parties
Claimants: AAA & Ors; First Defendant: Unilever PLC; Second Defendant: Unilever Tea Kenya Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (negligence) / Interlocutory Applications (jurisdiction, Stay, and Real Issue to Be Tried)
Outcome
Applications granted in part; claim against D1 struck out for no real issue to be tried; jurisdictional challenge by D2 dismissed; no stay granted.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Foreign Act of State Doctrine, Negligence, Parent Company Liability, Limitation, Occupiers' Liability
Tort Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Duty of Care Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Foreign Act of State Doctrine Negligence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAA & Ors

Claimants

Unilever PLC

First Defendant

Unilever Tea Kenya Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (negligence) / Interlocutory Applications (jurisdiction, Stay, and Real Issue to Be Tried)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims are barred by the foreign act of state doctrine (FAS)
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the Second Defendant (D2)
  3. 3 Whether the claim against the First Defendant (D1) should be stayed on forum non conveniens or case management grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The foreign act of state doctrine does not bar the claims as adjudication does not require the court to rule on the legality of acts of the Kenyan state. The English court cannot stay the claim against D1 on forum non conveniens grounds due to the Brussels Regulation. There is no real issue to be tried against D1 as the pleaded duty of care is not arguable on the facts and law; the claim against D1 is bound to fail. The court has jurisdiction over D2 but the claims against D2 are to be determined under Kenyan law.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part; claim against D1 struck out for no real issue to be tried; jurisdictional challenge by D2 dismissed; no stay granted.

Orders

  • Claim against First Defendant (Unilever PLC) struck out for no real issue to be tried.
  • Jurisdictional challenge by Second Defendant (Unilever Tea Kenya Limited) dismissed.