data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e1c1/6e1c1950fb4f08b9e2d176395a2b45d615101ab4" alt=""
It was argued that RDS owed the Nigerian claimants a duty of care because (1) it controlled the pipeline operations in Nigeria from which the leaks occurred, or (2) it had assumed direct responsibility to protect the claimants from the damage caused by the leaks. At first instance it was held that there was no arguable case that a duty of care arose. This finding - albeit with criticism of the way in which the trial judge had reached it - was upheld by a majority in the Court of Appeal (Chancellor and Simon LJ; Sales LJ dissenting).
No comments:
Post a Comment