← All Authorities
United Kingdom duty of careforum non conveniens

Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc

[2021] UKSC 3
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2021
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A parent company may owe a duty of care to those affected by a subsidiary's operations where it exercises sufficient control over those operations.

Key Principle

Followed Vedanta: a parent company may owe a duty of care where it exercises sufficient control over a subsidiary's relevant operations; the claims were arguable and could proceed to trial.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc