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 claims are not barred by the foreign act of state doctrine because adjudication does not require the court to rule on the lawfulness of Kenyan state acts. The English court has jurisdiction over D2 as a necessary and proper party, and the claim against D1 is not to be stayed on forum non conveniens or case...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 371 (QB)
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
Claim against First Defendant (Unilever PLC) struck out; proceedings against Second Defendant (Unilever Tea Kenya Limited) may proceed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Parent Company Liability, Foreign Act of State Doctrine, Forum Non Conveniens, Jurisdiction, Negligence, Limitation, Occupiers' Liability
Tort Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Duty of Care Parent Company Liability Foreign Act of State Doctrine Forum Non Conveniens Jurisdiction +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 8
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 claims should be stayed on forum non conveniens or case management grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are not barred by the foreign act of state doctrine because adjudication does not require the court to rule on the lawfulness of Kenyan state acts. The English court has jurisdiction over D2 as a necessary and proper party, and the claim against D1 is not to be stayed on forum non conveniens or case management grounds due to the operation of the Brussels Regulation and absence of rare and compelling circumstances. However, the claim against D1 does not raise a real issue to be tried as the pleaded duty of care is novel, unarguable, and unsustainable on the facts and law, and is therefore struck out. The claims against D2 may proceed subject to Kenyan law and limitation issues.

Court Disposition

Claim against First Defendant (Unilever PLC) struck out; proceedings against Second Defendant (Unilever Tea Kenya Limited) may proceed.

Orders

  • Claim against First Defendant (Unilever PLC) struck out for no real issue to be tried.
  • Permission to serve out of jurisdiction on Second Defendant (Unilever Tea Kenya Limited) upheld.