Parental Corporate Liability as Tort in the United Kingdom Part I: How the Past Informs the Challenge of Contemporary Regulation

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.54648/bula2022036
Gregory Chilson
{"title":"Parental Corporate Liability as Tort in the United Kingdom Part I: How the Past Informs the Challenge of Contemporary Regulation","authors":"Gregory Chilson","doi":"10.54648/bula2022036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent case law in the UK courts has established the possibility for the parent companies of multinational corporations (MNCs) to hold liability in tort negligence for harms caused by their foreign-based subsidiaries. The UK’s approach – a general duty of care for cross-border torts – is noteworthy in that it has developed organically through the common law despite conflicting with established principles of company law. By comparison, European neighbours such as France, Switzerland and Germany have developed statutory regulatory regimes which utilize due diligence obligations that appear more reflective of recent international accountability standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) of the late John Ruggie.\nThis work serves as an in-depth investigation for scholars of tort law, company law, private international law and human rights, who are interested in understanding this rapidly developing area of practice from an English perspective. This work is offered in two parts. This first part contextualizes the current law within contemporary academic discourse and offers a historically informed explanation for the conceptual underpinnings of the unique approach currently taken within English jurisprudence and their coherence with the broader principles of domestic UK company law.\nThe second part offers an analysis of UK law as it stands including the caselaw that builds the corpus of parent company liability in England and Wales. It analyses how effective the current liabilities identified by the Courts are in securing fair remedy for corporate misfeasance. It identifies and categorizes its key features and contrasts them with comparative elements of statutory due diligence approaches adopted by France and Germany or pursued as in the case of Switzerland. It will finally consider whether they offer any concepts worthy of consideration for the regulation of parent company liabilities in future.\nParent Company, Corporate Groups, English Company Law, Human Rights Due Diligence, UNGPs, Okpabi, Vedanta, Mass Torts, Supply Chain Liability, Limited Liability","PeriodicalId":42005,"journal":{"name":"AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/bula2022036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent case law in the UK courts has established the possibility for the parent companies of multinational corporations (MNCs) to hold liability in tort negligence for harms caused by their foreign-based subsidiaries. The UK’s approach – a general duty of care for cross-border torts – is noteworthy in that it has developed organically through the common law despite conflicting with established principles of company law. By comparison, European neighbours such as France, Switzerland and Germany have developed statutory regulatory regimes which utilize due diligence obligations that appear more reflective of recent international accountability standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) of the late John Ruggie. This work serves as an in-depth investigation for scholars of tort law, company law, private international law and human rights, who are interested in understanding this rapidly developing area of practice from an English perspective. This work is offered in two parts. This first part contextualizes the current law within contemporary academic discourse and offers a historically informed explanation for the conceptual underpinnings of the unique approach currently taken within English jurisprudence and their coherence with the broader principles of domestic UK company law. The second part offers an analysis of UK law as it stands including the caselaw that builds the corpus of parent company liability in England and Wales. It analyses how effective the current liabilities identified by the Courts are in securing fair remedy for corporate misfeasance. It identifies and categorizes its key features and contrasts them with comparative elements of statutory due diligence approaches adopted by France and Germany or pursued as in the case of Switzerland. It will finally consider whether they offer any concepts worthy of consideration for the regulation of parent company liabilities in future. Parent Company, Corporate Groups, English Company Law, Human Rights Due Diligence, UNGPs, Okpabi, Vedanta, Mass Torts, Supply Chain Liability, Limited Liability
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国作为侵权行为的父母公司责任第一部分:过去如何告知当代监管的挑战
英国法院最近的判例法已经确立了跨国公司(MNCs)母公司对其外国子公司造成的损害承担侵权过失责任的可能性。英国的做法——跨境侵权的一般注意义务——值得注意的是,尽管它与公司法的既定原则相冲突,但它是通过普通法有机发展起来的。相比之下,法国、瑞士和德国等欧洲邻国已经制定了法定监管制度,利用尽职调查义务,这些制度似乎更能反映最近的国际问责标准,比如已故的约翰•鲁吉(John Ruggie)的《联合国企业与人权指导原则》(UNGPs)。这本书为侵权法、公司法、国际私法和人权领域的学者提供了深入的研究,他们有兴趣从英语的角度来理解这一快速发展的实践领域。本研究分为两部分。第一部分将现行法律置于当代学术话语的背景下,并为英国法理学中目前采用的独特方法的概念基础以及它们与英国国内公司法的更广泛原则的一致性提供了历史上知情的解释。第二部分分析了英国法律的现状,包括在英格兰和威尔士建立母公司责任主体的判例法。它分析了法院确定的现行责任在确保对公司不当行为的公平补救方面的有效性。它确定并分类了其主要特点,并将其与法国和德国采用的或瑞士采用的法定尽职调查方法的比较要素进行了对比。最后将考虑它们是否为未来的母公司责任监管提供了一些值得考虑的概念。母公司,企业集团,英国公司法,人权尽职调查,UNGPs, Okpabi, Vedanta,大规模侵权,供应链责任,有限责任
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Good Faith in English Contract Law: Should the Law Retreat? Rethinking Directors’ Statutory Fiduciary Duties in the Commonwealth Caribbean: Should Sequana be Followed? Is the Derivative Action Regime in India a Historical Relic? Cybersecurity in Business: A Case Study of DiDi The EU-US Data Privacy Framework: Doomed Like Its Predecessors?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1