header-logo header-logo

19 February 2020
Issue: 7875 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No liability for Tonkalili

A group of 142 claimants from Sierra Leone has lost its Court of Appeal case against a UK-based mining company for events the trial judge described as ‘violent chaos during the course of which many villagers were variously beaten, shot, gassed, robbed, sexually assaulted, squalidly incarcerated and, in one case, killed’

The claimants live in Tonkolili and the defendants were previously the owners and operators of a large iron ore mine in the district, Tonkolili Iron Ore (formerly a subsidiary of African Minerals). The violence occurred in 2010 and 2012 when the mining company took over a number of villages, and the villagers’ protests were met with excessive force by the Sierra Leone Police.

The claimants argued Tonkolili was liable for the actions of the police, which they denied. They had seven grounds of action, including: vicarious liability for torts committed both by company employees and police; accessory liability, given the company supplied the police with money, vehicles and accommodation during the 2012 incident; malicious prosecution; and breach of a non-delegable duty in respect of an extra hazardous activity carried out negligently.

During the High Court hearing in 2018, Mr Justice Turner and the legal teams for both sides travelled to Sierra Leone so the judge could take evidence from witnesses in person―the first time a High Court hearing has done so.

The mining company’s argument included that there is no liability in negligence for the criminal acts of third parties, and that in order to establish tortious liability for common design, something more was needed than the foreseeability that the police might over-react.

Ruling in Kalma v African Minerals [2020] EWCA Civ 144, the court dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

Martyn Day, senior partner, Leigh Day, representing the claimants, said his clients were disappointed and would be seeking leave to appeal.

Issue: 7875 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll