Skip to main content
Title:
Englebert Ngcobo (First Plaintiff) and Albert Dlamini (Second Plaintiff) and Makhaladi Anastasia Cele (suing as the adminsitratirix of the Estate of Peter Zibonele Cele) (Third Defendant) and Thor Chemicals Holdings Ltd (First Defendant) and Thor Chemicals (UK) Ltd. (Second Defendant) and Desmond John Cowley (Third Defendant)
Party:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region:
Europe
Type of document:
National - higher court
Date of text:
April 11, 1995
Data source:
InforMEA
Court name:
High Court of Justice
Justice(s):
Stewart, J.
Reference number:
No. 1994 N 1212
ECOLEX subject(s):
Waste & hazardous substances
Legal questions
Abstract:
Workers at Thor Chemicals South Africa (Proprietary) Ltd. In Natal sued their parent company in England. The South African plant manufactured and reprocessed mercury compounds. This action was taken by three employees who were exposed to hazardous and unsafe quantities of mercury. However, by the date of this application the first and the third plaintiffs had died and were represented respectively by a wife and a mother. None of the applicants could have sued the employer in South Africa because the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1941 (SA) prohibited action by an employee against his employer for injuries sustained at work but, irrespective of fault an employee could claim compensation from the Commissioner and each of the workmen had been paid some compensation under the scheme. This was a minimal amount in comparison to common law damages, and the plaintiffs commenced proceedings in England. The defendants sought to stay the proceedings in England on the ground that England was not an appropriate forum, but the plaintiffs alleged that an unsafe system of work, known to the defendants, had been transferred from England to South Africa. The Court examined the principle of forum non conveniens and held that the evidence of negligence on the Defendants’ part in England established a nexus with the damage in South Africa. There was grave danger that justice might not be done to the plaintiffs in South Africa if their case was dismissed in England. The Court therefore allowed the suit to proceed in England.
Available in:
UNEP/UNDP/Dutch Government Joint Project on Environmental Law in Africa, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters related to Environment, National Decisions, Volume I, Page 237