Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Andres Fernando Bravo & Ors v Amerisur Resources Ltd

[2023] EWHC 122 (KB)
Colombian farmers sued a company for an oil spill. The company said it was too late to sue, but the judge said it wasn't because the rules about how long you have to sue don't apply in this case. The judge also said the company might still be responsible, depending on the details of what happened.

Key Facts

  • Claimants, Colombian residents, sued Amerisur Resources Limited for environmental damages caused by a 2015 oil spill resulting from FARC terrorist activity.
  • Applicable law is Colombian, per Rome II.
  • Preliminary issues concerned the statute of limitations (two-year caducidad under Law 472 vs. ten-year prescripción under the Civil Code) and parent company liability.
  • The claim initially included general pollution claims alongside the oil spill claims, later discontinued.
  • Expert evidence on Colombian law was presented by both sides, with substantial agreement.

Legal Principles

Articles 2341 and 2356 of the Colombian Civil Code govern liability for damage caused by fault or negligence.

Colombian Civil Code

Article 47 of Law 472 sets a two-year limitation period (caducidad) for Colombian group actions.

Law 472 of 1998

Article 2536 of the Colombian Civil Code establishes a ten-year prescription period (prescripción) for ordinary actions.

Colombian Civil Code

Rome II Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 determines the applicable law for non-contractual obligations; Article 1(3) excludes evidence and procedure; Article 15(h) addresses prescription and limitation rules.

Rome II Regulation

Colombian law generally protects the separate legal personality of parent and subsidiary companies, with exceptions for fraud and insolvency.

Colombian Commercial Code Article 98, Law 222 of 1995, Superintendency of Companies Query No. 220-072648 of 11 May 2018

Outcomes

The claims are not time-barred under Article 47 of Law 472.

The court held that Article 47 is a limitation rule under Rome II, but the action is not a Colombian group action. The claimants did not choose to bring a group action; therefore, the ten-year prescripción period applies.

The legal principles precluding parent company liability for subsidiary actions do not bar the claimants' claims.

Liability depends on the specific facts. The court preferred Professor Santos’ evidence, concluding that liability is not precluded by the accepted legal principles, even if the parent company did not directly participate in the spill.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.