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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll