header-logo header-logo

16 February 2021
Issue: 7921 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Human rights , International justice , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Shell loses jurisdiction argument for Nigerian oil spill

Supreme Court rules on watershed moment for multinational companies

A group of more than 40,000 Nigerian claimants has been granted permission to pursue environmental devastation allegations against Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) in the UK courts.

The Supreme Court ruling in Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell [2021] UKSC 3 overturns earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court. It means the leadership of the Ogale Community, namely its king HRH Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi, and individuals from the Bille Kingdom can proceed with their negligence claim against parent company RDS and its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Corporation for oil spills which destroyed farming land, wiped out fish stocks and poisoned drinking water in the Niger Delta.

Shell did not dispute that its oil polluted the area and had not been cleared up, but argued that RDS could not be held responsible and therefore the cases should not be heard in England.

However, the Supreme Court found the Court of Appeal erred in law by wrongly conducting a mini-trial of the facts prior to the disclosure of relevant documents, focused too narrowly on the issue of ‘control’, and was wrong to hold that group-wide standards, policies and guidelines can never give rise to liability.

Leigh Day partner Daniel Leader, who acts for the claimants, said the case ‘represents a watershed moment in the accountability of multinational companies’.

Sophie Kemp, partner at Kingsley Napley, which represented interveners the Corporate Responsibility Coalition and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), said it was ‘another major step forward for those seeking accountability and access to justice for corporate human rights abuses both in the UK and internationally’.

ICJ senior legal adviser Carlos Lopez said the court’s emphasis on the relevance of evidence from internal company documents was ‘of utmost importance for the proper assessment of whether the parent company intervened, advised or controlled the relevant activities of its subsidiary that caused harm’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll