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

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

North East firm welcomes employment specialist

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Partner joins commercial and technology practice

Ellisons—Lizzy Firmin

Ellisons—Lizzy Firmin

Chief operating officer joins equity partnership

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Sophie Houghton of LexisPSL distils the key lesson from recent costs cases: if you want to exceed guideline hourly rates (GHR), you must prove why
back-to-top-scroll