AAA & Ors v Unilever Plc & Anor

AAA & Ors v Unilever Plc & Anor

The claims are not barred by the foreign act of state doctrine as adjudication does not require ruling on the lawfulness of acts of the Kenyan state. The claim against D1 (the parent company) does not raise a real issue to be tried as the loss and damage suffered by the claimants was not foreseeable by D1, and it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose the pleaded duty. The claim against D2 (the Kenyan subsidiary) does not have real prospects of success for similar reasons. Service on D2 is set aside. Applications to stay the claims on FAS or case management grounds are refused. Subsidiary findings are made on limitation and forum, but the main claims fail on the merits at this stage.

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 Service Out of Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Service on D2 set aside; applications to stay claims refused; claims against D1 and D2 do not proceed as no real issue to be tried or reasonable prospect of success.
Legal Topics
Parent Company Liability, Duty of Care, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Foreign Act of State, Limitation of Actions, Access to Justice
Tort Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Parent Company Liability Duty of Care Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Foreign Act of State +2 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 7 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
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 Service Out of Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims are barred by the foreign act of state doctrine (FAS)
  2. 2 Whether the English court is the appropriate forum
  3. 3 Whether there is a real issue to be tried against the parent company (D1)

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are not barred by the foreign act of state doctrine as adjudication does not require ruling on the lawfulness of acts of the Kenyan state. The claim against D1 (the parent company) does not raise a real issue to be tried as the loss and damage suffered by the claimants was not foreseeable by D1, and it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose the pleaded duty. The claim against D2 (the Kenyan subsidiary) does not have real prospects of success for similar reasons. Service on D2 is set aside. Applications to stay the claims on FAS or case management grounds are refused. Subsidiary findings are made on limitation and forum, but the main claims fail on the merits at this stage.

Court Disposition

Service on D2 set aside; applications to stay claims refused; claims against D1 and D2 do not proceed as no real issue to be tried or reasonable prospect of success.

Orders

  • Application to stay claims on FAS grounds refused.
  • Application to stay claims on case management grounds refused.