Expert Witness Journal Issue 66 April 2026 - Flipbook - Page 91
4. Key Takeaways
•
•
•
Re-evaluate group relationships: Parent
companies should decide, deliberately, how
their corporate group is governed. Some will
prioritise minimising the risk of being held
liable for subsidiaries’ acts by limiting day-to-day
intervention, while others will opt for stronger
oversight and control to prevent negligence in
the 昀椀rst place. Whatever approach is chosen, it
should be a conscious policy applied consistently
across the group.
Audit and maintain robust policies and
procedures: After deciding how the group
will be governed, audit existing policies and
procedures to ensure they re昀氀ect how the group
operates (or will operate going forwards).
Regularly review and update these documents.
The extent of a parent company’s oversight and
involvement in the operations of its subsidiaries is
a key consideration for the court when assessing
parent company liability. The group’s policies
and procedures on delegation, responsibilities
and reporting lines will be important evidence.
•
Consider insurance: Where possible, ensure
that insurance covers tortious liability,
cross-border litigation risks and the acts of
subsidiaries.
•
Prevention: In circumstances where a parent
company opts for oversight and control over
its subsidiaries’ a昀昀airs such that the parent
company could be held liable for a subsidiary’s
actions, identify and address risks related to
subsidiaries early, and support subsidiaries in
managing ongoing risks.
•
Stay ahead: Keep abreast of legal, regulatory
and industry guidelines and developments and
revise practices as necessary.
5. Conclusion
The English courts are receptive to claims against
UK-domiciled parent companies for subsidiaries’
wrongdoing, especially ESG-focused group actions
with access to justice concerns. In most of the cases
mentioned above, proceedings are ongoing. We can
therefore expect further guidance from the courts
on parent company liability in due course.
Careful drafting of public-facing materials:
Public facing documents such as annual reports,
sustainability reports and 昀椀nancial statements
should be carefully drafted. A parent company
should not hold itself out as having a greater
degree of control over its subsidiaries than it
actually has.
Other author: Melissa Sibley, Solicitor Apprentice
Mr Mark Hinnells
Fiduciary Duty – challenges as to whether Trustees
or Directors have met their Fiduciary Duty in
considering ESG, environment or climate change in
investment decisions and risk management. Mark
has a particular interest in pensions and other funds
in multiple jurisdictions.
Climate Change Expert
PhD MSc MA BA
Dr Mark Hinnells is an Energy and Climate
Change Expert, he has over 33 years
academic and consulting experience in
energy policy, energy strategy, project
development and climate finance, and
uses this to undertake expert witness
instructions to aid arbitration, litigation, or
public inquiry.
His expertise covers:
Planning law – where the impact of a planning application on
UK climate change targets may be material. Such proposals
include airports, roads, oil and gas and power generation
proposals. Mark has particular experience with appeals and
public inquiries at airports acting both for airports and Local
Planning Authorities.
Greenwashing – assembling a case against a claim,
or defending the accuracy of claims made by,
financial institutions retailers or producers.
Challenges to Government policy – including under
the Climate Change Act, carbon budgets, policy
impact assessments, efficacy, proportionality, cost
etc
Human rights and climate change – including
where rights are claimed to have been infringed
through lack of appropriate action.
For instructions involving several different
environmental impacts he works closely with Ricardo
Energy and Environment and others.
Email: mark.hinnells@susenco.com | Telephone: 01865 600161 | Website: www.susenco.com
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
89
APRIL 2026
