Expert Witness Journal Issue 66 April 2026 - Flipbook - Page 90
•
•
•
•
•
(ii) Okpabi concerns two sets of proceedings.
The Ogale proceedings, where the
claimants are a Nigerian farming and
昀椀shing community of ~40,000, and the
Bille proceedings, where the claimants
are 2,335 individuals living in a remote
riverine community in Nigeria. The claim is
ongoing after a preliminary issues hearing
on Nigerian law, judgment on which was
handed down in June 2025.
out of the jurisdiction on the basis that the
subsidiary is a “necessary and proper party” to
the proceedings.
Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in jurisdiction
challenges. However, in most cases the English
courts have found in favour of retaining
jurisdiction (see: Okpabi, Mariana; Limbu v Dyson
Technology Ltd; Catarina Oliveira Da Silva v Brazil
Iron Ltd), notwithstanding recognising that
England and Wales was not the most natural
forum for the dispute.
(iii) Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd [2024]
EWCA Civ 1564 is a claim on behalf of
Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers
who allege that they were tra昀케cked to
Malaysia and subjected to exploitative and
abusive living and working conditions.
The claim is ongoing, with a liability trial
expected to take place in April 2027.
We anticipate that claimants could also validly
serve proceedings on a non-English parent
company with a “place of business” in England
and Wales, before using the “necessary and
proper party” gateway to join the overseas
subsidiary to the proceedings. Whether a
company is deemed to have a “place of business”
in the jurisdiction depends on the facts in each
case and the adoption of such a strategy would
likely result in challenges to the jurisdiction of
the English courts.
(iv) Catarina Oliveira Da Silva v Brazil
Iron Ltd [2025] EWHC 606 (KB) involves
103 claimants who were residents of
communities in Brazil allegedly impacted by
unlawful pollution from the Fazenda Mocó
iron ore mine. Notably, this group claim
is not brought in respect of the Brazilian
company that operated the mine; but
instead against its two English-domiciled
owners, with the second defendant being
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the 昀椀rst.
The claimants allege that both assumed
“control and direction” over the Brazilian
mine operator. The claim is continuing
after the Court of Appeal refused the
defendants’ application for permission to
appeal the High Court’s 昀椀nding that the
English courts have jurisdiction to hear the
claims.
(v) Município de Mariana is thought to
be the largest group claim in England
to-date and concerns claims brought on
behalf of 600,000+ individuals impacted
by the 2015 Fundão Dam disaster. The
High Court initially struck out the claim,
deeming it “irredeemably unmanageable”;
however the Court of Appeal has allowed
it to proceed, emphasising the wide range
of case management tools available to the
court. The High Court handed down its
judgment in November 2025 (our article on
the judgment is accessible here).
“Piggyback” jurisdiction: Many of the claimants
have adopted the strategy successfully deployed
by the claimants in Vedanta to ensure that their
claims are heard by the English courts, despite
appearing to be more closely connected to
another jurisdiction. The claimants commence
proceedings in the English courts and serve the
proceedings on the UK domiciled parent as of
right. They are then able to obtain the court’s
permission to serve on the overseas subsidiary
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
88
•
Access to justice: In each of Okpabi, Mariana,
Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd, and Catarina
Oliveira Da Silva v Brazil Iron Ltd, the English
courts accepted jurisdiction on the basis that
there was a real risk of substantial justice not
being achieved if the claims were to proceed in
the jurisdictions of the overseas subsidiaries.
Crucially, these claims involved claimants
with little means and no access to funding
arrangements which would be available to them
in the UK. As explained by the Court of Appeal
in Limbu, “if the defendants can be expected to have
the very high standard of legal service in Malaysia
which their resources permit, but the claimants only
a lesser standard, whereas in England the claimants
will also be represented by experienced and well
resourced solicitors…that is a factor… which favours
England as a more appropriate forum”.
•
The English courts can assess parent company
liability, irrespective of governing law: As
emphasised by the Supreme Court in Vedanta
and Okpabi, the existence of a parental duty
is often a “pure question of fact” and the
English courts are able to make an assessment
irrespective of the law governing the dispute.
By way of illustration, Vedanta was governed
by Zambian law, Okpabi by Nigerian law and
Mariana by Brazilian law.
•
Continuation of ESG related harm claims:
Increasingly, large claims against parent
companies in relation to wrongdoing by their
overseas subsidiaries have ESG related causes
of action, in particular socio-environmental
damage, and human rights violations. We
expect claims against parent companies of this
nature to become increasingly common.
APRIL 2026
