header-logo header-logo

13 July 2021
Issue: 7941 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , International justice
printer mail-detail

Shell drops jurisdictional arguments

A major trial concerning liability for oil pollution in the Niger Delta is to go ahead in the High Court after Royal Dutch Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary SPDC confirmed it would not contest jurisdictional issues

The trial, Okpabi v Shell, is likely to be heard next year and to lead to the disclosure of internal Shell documents about its environmental practices in Nigeria, according to Leigh Day, the law firm representing members of the Ogale and Bille communities. The communities, comprising more than 50,000 people, allege Royal Dutch Shell and SPDC are jointly responsible for the oil pollution that has afflicted their land for decades. They are seeking clean-up and reparations for the damage.

In February, the Supreme Court held in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell [2021] UKSC 3 that Royal Dutch Shell was arguably liable for the pollution, which resulted from failings in SPDC’s operations, and the case could proceed in the English courts. Some remaining questions as to whether SPDC could be joined to the claims were sent to the High Court for determination. However, Shell’s confirmation that it will not contest these means the trial will go ahead, with SPDC joined.

Shell had not denied both communities were severely polluted by its oil or that no adequate clean-up had taken place. However, it had argued it could not be legally responsible for the harm and so the cases should not be heard in England.

Leigh Day partner Daniel Leader said: ‘This is a significant win for the communities.

‘After five years of legal arguments at the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the Communities claims can finally progress toward a trial. In the meantime, Shell’s oil contamination remains in their drinking water, land and waterways and still no clean-up has taken place.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll