Lubbe v. Cape PLC
House of Lords
1 W.L.R. 1545 (2000)
- Written by Elizabeth Yingling, JD
Facts
Lubbe and thousands of other similarly situated individuals (collectively, Lubbe) (plaintiffs) sued Cape PLC (defendant), an English corporation, for personal injuries arising from asbestos exposure received while working for Cape’s South African subsidiary. The United Kingdom had procedures for handling complex group cases, while South Africa did not. Cape moved to stay the case on the basis of forum non conveniens, alleging the case should be decided in South Africa and not England. Lubbe argued that substantial justice would not be done in South Africa because legal aid was not available and there was no reasonable likelihood that lawyers would accept a contingency fee for such a complex case. Lubbe contended that, conversely, legal representation and adequate funding were available in England. Cape countered that Lubbe had not applied for legal aid in South Africa and it was speculative to contend that lawyers would not accept a contingency-fee representation. The South African Contingency Fees Act applied only to attorneys’ fees and not expert-witness fees. Cape also contended that other sources of litigation funding were available. Cape further alleged that, if sued in South Africa, Cape could join third parties that had contributed to Lubbe’s damages and enforce judgments against those parties in South Africa. In response, Lubbe agreed that Cape would be liable only for Cape’s proportionate share of damages. Both Lubbe and Cape argued that public interest favored their respective chosen forum. The trial court stayed the case, and the court of appeal affirmed. Lubbe appealed to the House of Lords.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bingham, J.)
Concurrence (Hope, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.