FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W343148217> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W343148217 startingPage "257" @default.
• W343148217 abstract "English Courts Decide Forum for Asbestos Actions Writing in the newsletter of the Multinational Litigation Committee, Mark Elvy of Ashurst Morris Crisp, London, discusses the South African miners suit for asbestos dust personal injuries: Lubbe v. Cape plc, [1999] C.A. (Pill L.J., Aldous L.J., Tuckey L.J.), 29 November 1999 (unreported), concerned appeal by the plaintiffs in two separate acdons against a judgement given on 30 July 1999 by Buckley J. in which both actions had been stayed. The first action had been commenced in England in 1997 by five South African plaintiffs against Cape plc (the English company) for damages for personal injuries alleged to be caused by exposure to asbestos dust at mines and mills in South Africa that were owned and operated by a wholly owned South African subsidiary of Cape (the Lubbe action). It was alleged that at the material time, the English company had de facto control of these mines and mills, as its directors and senior personnel were responsible fox making policy decisions and giving instructions that led to the South African subsidiary's business being carried out in the way it was. As a result, it was asserted, they owed a duty of care to employees and neighbours living in the vicinity. Proceeding in England The Lubbe action first came before the Court of Appeal in 1998, and it was allowed to proceed in England on the basis that the English company had not shown that South Africa was so and distinctly the more appropriate forum. In December 1998, the House of Lords dismissed a subsequent petition by Cape to stay the proceedings. Soon after that a second action-a group action involving 1,539 other claimants-was brought against Cape, claiming the same alleged breach of duty. The claimants in both actions were represented by the solicitors Leigh Day & Co. Following application by Cape, Buckley J. considered both the group action and Lubbe action and came to the view that both actions should be stayed on the ground that South Africa was the more appropriate forum. Having weighed all the factors, including allegations of abuse of process, he considered the Lubbe actions merely part of the whole litigation and declined to treat the two actions separately. The institution of the group action was a sufficient change of circumstances to entitle the court to reconsider the position of the Lubbe claimants. Forum non conveniens It was common ground that the question of should be determined according to the principles stated by Lord Goff in Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex, [1987] A.C. 460 at 476C to 478E. As the plaintiffs in both actions had founded jurisdiction as of right under English law by reason of the defendants' domicile, the defendants had the burden of proving that South Africa was an available forum that was clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the English forum for trial of the action. If proved, the court would ordinarily grant a stay unless the claimant showed circumstances by reason of which justice required that a stay should nevertheless not be granted. The previous Court of Appeal had held that the South African was unavailable, as Cape's offer to submit to the jurisdiction of the appropriate divisions of the High Court of South Africa was conditional. The present Court of Appeal considered this point and said that Cape's offer to submit to the jurisdiction, even with conditions, meant that the issue of unavailability was not a factor. More appropriate The Court of Appeal in 1998 had its decision not to stay the proceedings in part on the ground that the breaches of duty alleged against Cape and its personnel occurred essentially in England, although the effects were felt by the plaintiffs in South Africa. The present court noted at the outset that, but for the jurisdictional issue, it would be normal for the South African subsidiary conducting the operations to be sued, and extremely unlikely for a company in the English company's position to be joined. …" @default.
• W343148217 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W343148217 creator A5024214254 @default.
• W343148217 date "2000-04-01" @default.
• W343148217 modified "2023-09-22" @default.
• W343148217 title "English Courts Decide Forum for Asbestos Actions" @default.
• W343148217 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W343148217 type Work @default.
• W343148217 sameAs 343148217 @default.
• W343148217 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W343148217 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W343148217 hasAuthorship W343148217A5024214254 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C191897082 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C2776463841 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C2777628658 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C2779306362 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C510490043 @default.
• W343148217 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C144024400 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C17744445 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C191897082 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C192562407 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C199539241 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C2776463841 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C2777351106 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C2777381055 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C2777628658 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C2778449503 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C2779103253 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C2779306362 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C510490043 @default.
• W343148217 hasConceptScore W343148217C97460637 @default.
• W343148217 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W343148217 hasLocation W3431482171 @default.
• W343148217 hasOpenAccess W343148217 @default.
• W343148217 hasPrimaryLocation W3431482171 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W125406246 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W1492145993 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W183873103 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W202170321 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W2088694581 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W2160584929 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W2356823068 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W237098460 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W238144898 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W2408594788 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W2502343912 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W260703575 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W290643739 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W294840596 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W3122641037 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W336402353 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W619709309 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W853427604 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W96182767 @default.
• W343148217 hasRelatedWork W172940862 @default.
• W343148217 hasVolume "67" @default.
• W343148217 isParatext "false" @default.
• W343148217 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W343148217 magId "343148217" @default.
• W343148217 workType "article" @default.