Session 4

Question 1

Provide examples of possible types of appropriate remedy within the context of the UNGPs.

Answer 1

Apologies
Restitution
Rehabilitation
Financial or non-financial compensation
Punitive sanctions
Prevention of harm, e.g. through injunctions or guarantees of non-repetition

Question 2

What was the main take-away from the following case: Chandler v. Cape

Answer 2

The legal issue was whether Cape Plc could be held liable for breaching a duty of care to its subsidiary’s employees.

Parent companies should play an active role in the operation of their subsidiaries, they cannot choose to be ignorant.

The ability of the parent company to control the subsidiary, and not evidence of actual control, is the crucial factor in establishing a duty of care.

The duty of care owed by the parent company to the employee of a subsidiary is not identical to the duty owed by the subsidiary itself.

Question 3

What was the main take-away from the following case: Vedanta

Answer 3

The claimants alleged negligence and breach of statutory duty by Vedanta due to its “very high level of control” over the mining operations and its compliance with relevant health, safety and environmental regulations.

Whether the English courts have jurisdiction for Vedanta based on the forum non conveniens principle or because there has been an abuse of EU law.

The case ended in an out-of-court settlement without any admission of liability in 2021.

The Vedanta case is significant because it addresses the issue of parent company liability for the actions of subsidiaries in foreign countries, raising important questions about corporate responsibility and access to justice for victims of corporate activity.

Question 4

What was the main take-away from the following case: Choc v Hudbay

Answer 4

The judge determined that the plaintiffs’ claims are based on the direct negligence of the parent company.

This ruling set an important precedent with respect to parent company liability as it marked the first time in Canada that cases involving foreign plaintiffs who allege to have suffered harm caused by a Canadian company’s overseas operations were cleared to proceed to trial.

Question 5

What was the main take-away from the following case: Nigerian Shell

Answer 5

The plaintiffs sought compensation for damages caused by Shell’s alleged negligent maintenance of pipelines, inadequate response to the spills, and insufficient cleanup efforts.

The case is considered a landmark judgment as it is the first time a Dutch court has held a Dutch transnational corporation accountable for its duty of care abroad. It also establishes a precedent for holding parent companies liable for environmental and human rights abuses committed by their subsidiaries in other countries.

Question 6

What was the main take-away from the following case: African Minerals

Answer 6

It is an important case for businesses exposed to human rights risks through their reliance on third parties, particularly state security forces, in relation to their operations abroad.

The finding in this appeal confirms the limits on the circumstances in which a company can be held liable for harms caused by such third parties.