,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
But now for the Negative Nancy part: the #Vedanta ruling is quite narrow and case-specific, and more importantly, the access to justice issues it highlights are only relevant if claimants pass the 'good, arguable case' test.
The SC did not intervene in the factual assessment of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that there was a legitimate case to be tried against Vedanta, and assumed that there was.
That was different in Okpabi v. Shell and AAA v. Unilever, where the courts did not find an arguable case, as the claimants could not demonstrate sufficiently that the parent companies were under a duty of care.
The duty of care issue was put before the SC in Vedanta, but it has not ruled on that question; nor has it engaged in the question what the evidentiary burden shuold be for arguing that duty. Still an open question.
Balancing access to justice issues only comes into play once the court establishes that there is an arguable case against a UK-domiciled defendant, to which the foreign defendant can be a necessary and proper party.
So, while this is an important decision, not in the least for the claimants and their representatives themselves, it leaves many #bizhumanrights issues in English courts unresolved.
(Added bonus: this decision will not affect the ongoing Akpan v. Shell case in the Netherlands, as I had feared)
