header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 May 2018 / Charlotte Hill
Issue: 7792 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Oil leaks, anchor defendants & duty of care

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7792_hill

Charlotte Hill dissects the much-anticipated judgment in Okpabi v Shell, where accountability for pollution in Nigeria was sought in the English courts

  • Examines Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell.
  • Shell defeated a claim that it bore a duty of care for environmental damage caused by a subsidiary, arguing that the English courts did not have jurisdiction in the case.
  • Lessons multinationals can draw from the case.

The Court of Appeal recently handed down its long-awaited judgment in Okpabi and others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and another [2018] EWCA Civ 191 in respect of an application contesting jurisdiction, following a three-day hearing in November 2017 before Lord Justice Simon, Lord Justice Sales and Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that there was no arguable case against Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) by a 2:1 majority, holding that the English courts did not have jurisdiction to hear claims against RDS’s Nigerian subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Developments Company Limited (SPDC).

This

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll