Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd & Ors
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
Areas of Law
- Conflict of Laws
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision denying jurisdiction to the English courts over AASA. It confirmed that there was no 'good arguable case' that AASA's central administration was in England, and clarified the meaning of 'central administration' for jurisdiction purposes under Article 60(1)(b) of the Brussels 1 Regulation. Jessica Young's claims of medical negligence and vicarious liability against AASA and Dr. Jankowitz could not proceed in English courts, as AASA's business was conducted entirely in South Africa.
Judgment
Lord Justice Aikens :
I. Synopsis.
The question that arises on this appeal is whether there is a “good arguable case” that Anglo American South Africa Limited (“AASA”), a South African company, had its “central administration” in England for the purposes of The reason for the “good arguable case” test is explained in [21] below. Article 60 of the Brussels 1 Regulation (Regulation EC 44/2001 – “the Regulation”) when the current proceedings were issued on 25 August 2011. If that were so then in the current proceedings AASA could be sued in England pursuant to Article 2 of the Regulation, and therefore the proceedings could be served on AASA in South Africa without the leave of the court pursuant to This provides: “…persons domiciled in a Member State shall whatever their nationality be sued in the courts of that Member State”; the Member State being, in this case, the UK. CPR Pt 6.33(1). Andrew Smith J held that there was no such “good arguable case”. He had to deal with two sets of proceedings, but before the Court of Appeal there was an appeal in only one, that of Jessica Margaret Young, acting by her father and litigation friend, Kenneth Niall Young. The claim is against AASA and Dr Peter Jankowitz (“the Young action”). If the judge was wrong it would mean that Miss Young can bring an action for damages against AASA for alleged medical negligence of various doctors who managed her neo-natal care for whom it is alleged AASA is vicariously liable; and she could also bring an action against Dr Jankowitz, the second defendant. At the relevant time Dr Jankowitz was a paediatrician in independent private practice in Johannesburg, South Africa, although he was not then a consultant. Miss Young was referred to him early in her life and it is said that Dr Jankowitz was negligent in the conduct of those consultations.
Miss Young was born on 30 August 1990 at the Jwaneng Mine Hospital in Botswana. She suffered from Phenylketonuria (“PKU”). It is said that four doctors, who worked in the hospital where Miss Young was born and who are defendants in the Young action but who have not been served with the proceedings, did not guard against, detect or diagnose the PKU. AASA has accepted that it is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of those doctors insofar as they amounted to a breach of duty. AASA itself is also alleged to have been directly responsible for Miss Young’s current condition because it failed to have a system at the Jwaneng Mine for