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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
Businesses are facing a ‘dramatic rise in prosecution risks’ as sweeping reforms to corporate criminal liability come into force, expanding the net of who can be held responsible for wrongdoing inside organisations
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
back-to-top-scroll