Critical Analysis of Vedanta Resources and Duty of Care in Tort Law

This essay provides a detailed analysis of the Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe case, focusing on Lord Briggs' reasoning regarding the duty of care owed by parent companies to those harmed by their subsidiaries. The essay explores the application of the reasonable person test and examines the Caparo Industries plc v Dickman precedent. It compares the UK approach with that of Australian courts, particularly in the context of tort cases. The analysis covers the concept of negligence, the salient features of law, and how the duty of care is determined, including the role of rescuers and the actions of defendants. The essay also discusses the implications for multinational companies and the importance of ethical business conduct, human rights, and proper risk management. References to relevant books and journals are included to support the arguments.

Tort Law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
REASONABLE PERSON TEST................................................................................................3
CASE LAW APPLICATION......................................................................................................3
TORT CASE IN AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................4
UK APPROACH WITH THE ONE ADOPTED BY COURTS IN AUSTRALIA....................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION
Law of tort role is to govern the remedies for civil wrong and made personal held liable
for the wrongful act if it is done intentionally and accidently. However, aggrieved party has to
compensate by the payment for damages. The present report will discuss about Vedanta
Resources plc v Lung owe case and whether it will be held liable for duty of care. Lastly it will
also throw light on approaches used by Australian courts to embrace the principle of Vedanta.
MAIN BODY
REASONABLE PERSON TEST
The reasonable person test helps in determining tortious duty of care has been breached as
well as it involves the court considering what reasonable person in case of foreseeable risk. The
court has to analyse wither the reasonable person would have done in case of foreseeable risk
and what action will it take (Ng’ambi, (2022)). Although verdant group need to take the
precaution so that harmful substance will not be left in environment.
CASE LAW APPLICATION
Resident of the Zambian city of Chingola filed a suit in English Court against Vedanta
Resources, Plc which is a UK incorporated parent company. The Suit was against the waste
discharge in the local waterways which may cause personal injury to the local resident as well as
damage property and loss of income. The supreme court has passed the judgement on the basis
of Caparo VS Dikeman as it deals with duty of care. Similar viewpoints have been described in
both the cases. In case it was explained that there is professional
Vedanta main argument is the duty of care by the parent company involves the novel
extension of the tort of negligence. The common law waves of the parent company are attractive
for claimants to litigate against the United Kingdom which based on the parent companies with
violate common law. The parent company is own the duty of care under the tort of negligence, it
helps in categorise the liabilities of parent company (Anderson and Mallinson, (2020)). The
Vedanta is go too far so, this approach is beneficial for the Australia and its essential to manage
the risk and control between the business and parental company. this approach is the important
because it consist the areas such as competition law, tax law, reporting law and various attributes
that thrown without cause any problem. Vedanta principle is cleared for the law of tort with
parent in favour of claimant must be satisfied. In this the parent company duty of care is given by

the caparo. The Australian courts can embrace the Vedanta principle in future because it will be
beneficial for Vedanta and it is helps in provide the cores, values with integrity, excellence,
respect, care, innovation and trust so, Australian court can adopt the Vedanta principle’s in future
to diversify the business with the low cost operations and drive the class standards with
sustainability, governance and social responsibility (Price, (2021)). This rule helps employees to
ensure that they conduct the ethical business and provide the positive contribution to the society
and community with applicable for governments rules, law and regulations. The ethical code will
also apply to all the officers, directors and employees of the business and its subsidiaries. In
Caparo Industries Plc case has passed a rule related to arise in negligence, damage must be
reasonable probable result of the defendant’s conduct.
The court decision in case of Vedanta stated that parent company clearly need to clarify the
law and claimant has to bring the evidence regarding what actions a parent’s company has to
undertake that indicates a duty of care of parent organization which exists in the particular
circumstances. The decision has increase the risk that parent company need to take action that
showcase link between them and subsidiary which helps in making any decisions. Although
there is need to have health and safety policy, labour, environment and other human rights issues
so that business can be saved from other decision (Grusic, (2021)). If policies are implemented
properly than it will be very effective for the parent company and it will also showcase that duty
has been discharged. Although section 414C of the UK companies Act clarifies the duties of
directors under section 172 and it states that organization need to mention in their report
regarding environmental matters and social community. The decision was made very much about
English law and it submitted that the recognition of duty of care on the part of parent companies
was related with the UK obligations under treaties such as the ICESCR. Nevertheless, important
decision by Supreme court on the parent company duty of care and it will have impact on the
other cases across the world.
TORT CASE IN AUSTRALIA
In the recent case of Sister Marie Brigid Arthur Vs Minister for the Environment [2021] the
federal court of Australia has given the decision and it has identified that Australian government
owed a duty of care to Australian children to protect them from climate change while making the
decision to approve development of new mine. Although the decision deals with novel duties of
care and legal principle which deals with novel duty of care. In some of the ward of stat there

was an issue of continues rise in the case of children abusive family situation and whether
children need to remove from that situation earlier or return back to family although state had an
idea that children was at risk of serious harm (A Novel Duty of Care – Implications for State
Wardship and the Department’s Duty, 2020). The judge of court has declared some principles of
novel duty like foreseeability of harm, nature of harm and the degree and action of control which
need to exercise by defendant to avoid harm. There were two allegations against the state of
Victoria like breach of duty against the state related to events and conducts. Another was duty of
state against the organization and state in relation with the warship period. Thus it can be stated
that Australia law also deals with duty of care and negligence.
UK APPROACH WITH THE ONE ADOPTED BY COURTS IN AUSTRALIA
The salient features of law is the rules of law. It also considers the various features of law
such as normative in nature, territorial limitations, body of rules. The salient factors are those
factors which are moat important for law. For determine the novel duty of care the Australia
adopt the negligence of tort law. The novelty of duty of care is the known as the law of
negligence. Some injured in this business because of someone behaviours such as lack of action
and risk of injury are occurring as well as the injury are unreasonable (OYAGIRI, 2022). This
injured because of the breach of duty of care law. There are three legal teams. There are various
civil negligence such as criminal negligence, civil negligence.
In the context of criminal negligence is take place where the reasonable person act in the
similar circumstances. It is not the radical departure and reasonable person would be responded.
In the context of civil negligence, there are the low burden of proof because of the case, the
punishment for person are liable in the civil negligence. The duty of care is rise in relation to
omission and it can minimize and prevent harm to individual with the approach. Australia adopts
the united kingdoms approach fore prevent the harms and proper determine the duty of care in
the Australia legislation with salient factors. The rescue approach can be adopted by Australia to
negligence the duty. This establishes in the civil law that attempt the rescue which owned by the
duty of care by business who create the dangerous condition and situation. this duty can also
apply to the professional rescuers such as business life. Its is the concrete of tort law that arises
the various cases and held liable for failing to come to rescue of another party who face loss and
injury without being rescued. The defendant also helps in found out the duty of care because
there are links between the claimants and defendants was held to distant. The defendant approach

also helps in control the situation and also assumed responsibilities and it adopted a risk in law
(Suri, 2020). It creates the high degree of control and control relationship for responsibilities
with duty of employees act. Employees are able to found that how to negligence because the
omitted
The duty of care can be arisen with the help of defendants actions towards the claimant.
The rescuers are the special protection law because it comes in the sense of negligence the
accidents which owned a duty of care. There are no duty which existed between the recurses and
defendants who fell and tripped with the omission
in the context of salient factors, it is begun with the familiar objects because they are recognized
as the salient features of modern legal systems with various sources of law such as costume,
legislation, religion and morality, delegated legislation, judicial decisions, etc.
Vedanta main argument is the duty of care by the parent company involves the novel
extension of the tort of negligence. The common law waves of the parent company are attractive
for claimants to litigate against the United Kingdom which based on the parent companies with
violate common law. The parent company is own the duty of care under the tort of negligence, it
helps in categorize the liabilities of parent company. The Vedanta is gone too far so, this
approach is beneficial for the Australia and its essential to manage the risk and control between
the business and parental company (Levmore, 2019). this approach is the important because it
consists the areas such as competition law, tax law, reporting law and various attributes that
thrown without cause any problem. Vedanta's principle is cleared for the law of tort with parent
in favour of claimant must be satisfied. In this the parent company duty of care is given by the
caparo.
The Australian courts can embrace the Vedanta principle in future because it will be
beneficial for Vedanta and it is helps in provide the cores, values with integrity, excellence,
respect, care, innovation and trust so, Australian court can adopt the Vedanta principle’s in future
to diversify the business with the low cost operations and drive the class standards with
sustainability, governance and social responsibility. This helps in rules the employees to ensure
that they conduct the ethical business and provide the positive contribution to the society and
community with applicable for governments rules, law and regulations. The ethical code will
also apply to all the officers, directors and employees of the business and its subsidiaries.

CONCLUSION
From the above report it has been concluded that Vedanta highlights the need of
multinational companies that non UK claimants can bring the claim against them in court of UK.
The companies of UK need to follow human rights as well as respect and protect their
operations. For accomplishing this it need to make new polices and carry out human right
diligence. Training need to be given to employees and continue exercise to ensure that all human
rights are managed properly.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Anderson, T., Torreggiani, W. C., Munk, P. L., & Mallinson, P. I. (2020). The impact of the
introduction of artificial intelligence in radiology and its potential legal implications in the UK
and Ireland. BJR| Open. 2. 20200030.
Bright, C., Pineau, N., & Wouters, J. (2020). Toward a Corporate Duty for Lead Companies to
Respect Human Rights in Their Global Value Chains?. Business and Politics. 22(4). 667-697.
Grusic, U. (2021). Tort Law and State Accountability for Overseas Violations of International
Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: the UK Perspective. Utrecht Journal of
International and European Law.
Kolala, C., & Bwalya Umar, B. (2019, November). National benefits, local costs? Local
residents' views on environmental and social effects of large‐scale mining in Chingola, Zambia.
In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 205-217). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Levmore, S. (2019). Richard Posner, the decline of the common law, and the negligence
principle. The University of Chicago Law Review. 86.1137-1156.
Ng’ambi, S. P. (2022). Resource Nationalism in Zambia 1964–2020 and the Liquidation of
Konkola Copper Mines. Journal of Southern African Studies, 1-16.
OYAGIRI, B. I. (2022). NEGLIGENCE AND THE DUTY OF CARE: LIABILITY IN THE
BIBLE AND THE CONTEMPORARY TORTS LAW. African Journal Of Law And
Human Rights. 6(1).
Price, A. (2021). Comparative Tort Law: Global Perspectives. Edited by Mauro Bussani and
Anthony J. Sebok. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 567.
ISBN: 978-1-78990-597-7. International Journal of Legal Information. 49(2). 137-138.
Suri, S. (2020). Action, affiliation, and a duty of care: Physicians' liability in nontraditional
settings. Fordham L. Rev.. 89. 301.
Online references
A Novel Duty of Care – Implications for State Wardship and the Department’s Duty, 2020.
[Online]. Available through < https://www.angelasdrinislegal.com.au/16-june-2021-a-novel-
duty-of-care-implications-for-state-wardship-and-the-departments-duty.html >
1

2