AAA & Ors v Unilever Plc & Anor

AAA & Ors v Unilever Plc & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish a good arguable case that Unilever PLC owed them a duty of care. There was no sufficient proximity between Unilever and the appellants, as Unilever did not manage UTKL's operations or provide relevant advice regarding the crisis. UTKL was solely responsible for its own risk management and crisis response. Without an anchor defendant in England, the claims cannot proceed in the English courts.

Parties
Appellants: AAA & Others; Respondent/cross Appellant: Unilever PLC; Respondent/cross Appellant: Unilever Tea Kenya Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Parent Company Liability, Duty of Care, Jurisdiction Over Foreign Subsidiaries, Proximity in Tort, Case Management Stay
Tort Law Corporate Law Jurisdiction Parent Company Liability Duty of Care Jurisdiction Over Foreign Subsidiaries Proximity in Tort Case Management Stay

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAA & Others

Appellants

Unilever PLC

Respondent/cross Appellant

Unilever Tea Kenya Limited

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Unilever PLC owed a duty of care to the appellants as parent company of UTKL
  2. 2 Whether UTKL owed a duty of care to the appellants
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient proximity between Unilever and the appellants to impose a duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish a good arguable case that Unilever PLC owed them a duty of care. There was no sufficient proximity between Unilever and the appellants, as Unilever did not manage UTKL's operations or provide relevant advice regarding the crisis. UTKL was solely responsible for its own risk management and crisis response. Without an anchor defendant in England, the claims cannot proceed in the English courts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed