header-logo header-logo

20 October 2023 / John Doherty , Richard Raban-Williams
Issue: 8045 / Categories: Features , Environment
printer mail-detail

Derivative claim against Shell goes up in smoke

143309
Richard Raban-Williams & John Doherty review an innovative attempt to challenge Shell’s climate change policies
  • The first recorded attempt to use a derivative action to hold directors liable for a company’s climate crisis response has been brought by ClientEarth.
  • Explains why the claim failed in the High Court. However, it may be appealed.
  • The requirement for good faith and the views of other shareholders may be of consequence to future derivative actions.

Like the wildfires that have raged across the globe recently, disputes related to climate change continue to flare up. Most recently, in July 2023, the High Court in London handed down its final judgment in a claim brought by ClientEarth against Shell and its board of directors.

The decision is the first recorded attempt to use a derivative action to hold directors liable for a company’s response to the climate crisis. ClientEarth sought injunctive and declaratory relief, rather than damages, presumably reflecting the challenges presented by demonstrating shareholder loss in the context

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll