header-logo header-logo

Shell loses jurisdiction argument for Nigerian oil spill

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ben Daniels, DAC Beachcroft

NLJ Career Profile: Ben Daniels, DAC Beachcroft

Ben Daniels, newly elected as the next senior partner of DAC Beachcroft, reflects on his leadership inspiration and considers an impish alternative career

Osbornes Law—Lee Henderson

Osbornes Law—Lee Henderson

Family team bolstered by latest partner hire

Freeths—Graeme Danby & John Jeffreys

Freeths—Graeme Danby & John Jeffreys

Firms strengthens national restructuring and insolvency practice with leadership appointments

NEWS
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School highlights a turbulent end to 2025 in the civil courts, from the looming appeal in Mazur to judicial frustration with ever-expanding bundles, in his final NLJ 'The insider' column of the year
Antonia Glover of Quinn Emanuel outlines sweeping transparency reforms following the work of the Transparency and Open Justice Board in this week's NLJ
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
In NLJ this week, Ian Smith, emeritus professor at UEA, explores major developments in employment law from the Supreme Court and appellate courts
back-to-top-scroll