← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case duty of careforum non conveniens

Vedanta Resources PLC v Lungowe

[2019] UKSC 20
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2019
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A parent company may owe a duty of care to those affected by its subsidiary's operations where it exercises sufficient control or assumes responsibility, and jurisdiction may be established via an anchor defendant.

Key Principle

Parent company can owe duty of care to persons affected by subsidiary's operations. Sufficient control/assumption of responsibility required. Anchor defendant jurisdiction established.

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Vedanta Resources PLC v Lungowe and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Vedanta Resources PLC v Lungow...