In The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1. The International Commission of Jurists and The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition Ltd (together “the Interveners”)1 intervene in this appeal in order to assist the Court in relation to a discrete set of materials not addressed by the parties before the Court of Appeal.

2. These submissions address the issue of whether the First Appellant (“Vedanta”) at least arguably owed the Claimants a duty of care, and are relevant to Grounds 1(a) and 4 of the Appellants’ Grounds of Appeal. Specifically, the Interveners submit that the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Vedanta arguably owed the Claimants a duty of care [Judgment ¶¶67-92] is supported by (i) international standards regarding the responsibilities of business enterprises in relation to human rights and environmental
protection; (ii) material published by the United Kingdom Government with the aim of implementing those international standards; and (iii) comparative law jurisprudence. The Court of Appeal’s judgment does not refer to these materials, but the Interveners submit that they provide further support for its conclusion on the duty of care issue.

3. The Appellants argue their appeal on the basis that “the Caparo principles” or “the Caparo requirements” are not satisfied in this case.2 The Interveners are, however,
mindful that the Supreme Court has emphasised that one should not reach too hastily for the factors famously referred to in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 at 617H-618A, and that “the characteristic approach of the common law… is to develop incrementally and by analogy with established authority”: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, [2018] 2 WLR 595 (per Lord Reed at ¶¶21-27,
with the quotation at ¶27); NRAM Ltd v Steel [2018] UKSC 13, [2018] 1 WLR 1190 (per Lord Wilson at ¶22); Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50, [2018] 3 WLR 1153 (per Lord Lloyd Jones at ¶15).

4. The Interveners consider that there is no need to reach for Caparo in this case. The duty contended for by the Claimants is not novel, or is at least closely analogous to
established situations in which a duty of care applies:
(a) The essence of the Claimants’ case on the duty of care issue is understood to be that Vedanta owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care in monitoring and
controlling the Second Appellant (“Konkola”), in order to prevent Konkola’s activities from causing harm to them by virtue of the unusual level of control, direction and knowledge exercised by Vedanta in relation to the allegedly harmful operations.
(b) In Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] 1 AC 241 (HL), Lord Goff noted (at 271-272) that there are significant exceptions to the position that there is no general duty of care to prevent a third party from causing harm to others. Those exceptions include (i) where there is “an imposition or assumption of responsibility
upon or by the defender”; and (ii) where there is “a special relationship between the defender and the third party, by virtue of which the defender is responsible for
controlling the third party”. That a duty of care will arise in such circumstances is illustrated by (for example) cases in which it has been held that parents and others
responsible for supervising children owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent them from causing harm to third parties: see, e.g. Smith v Leurs [1945] 70
CLR 256 (High Court of Australia); 3 Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549 (HL); Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL).

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.
Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.