Striking a balance or tipping the scales? The Independent Review of Administrative Law and the possible reform of Judicial Review
Kingsley Napley acted jointly for international human rights interveners, the Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition and the International Commission of Jurists, who supported the claimants’ case. Below we give our analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgment which overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal. We analyse in particular the judgment’s import for victims of overseas environmental or human rights abuses who seek recourse in the UK courts, where the matters complained of are connected to a UK-based parent company.
In Okpabi the Ogale and Bille communities seek damages and remedial works in respect of oil spills emanating from pipelines operated partly by the Shell Petroleum Company of Nigeria (“SPDC”). SPDC is the Nigerian subsidiary of UK-based Royal Dutch Shell (“RDS”). The claims were brought in 2016 stemming from decades of oil pollution in the Niger Delta argued to have contaminated the local environment such that water sources cannot be used for drinking, agriculture or washing. Satellite imagery referenced at the Supreme Court hearing was said to show irreparable damage to areas of mangrove forests twice the size of Manhattan.
The claimants’ case to have the matter heard in the UK, when the relevant events occurred in the Niger Delta, raised complex legal issues regarding jurisdiction (primarily pursuant to CPR PD 6B Rule 3.1 and the Brussels Regulation (Recast)). In essence the claimants had to show that UK-based RDS owed an arguable duty of care in tort towards them in respect of SPDC’s alleged failures in Nigeria, in order to bring the case against both Shell entities in the English courts. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal in Okpabi ruled against the claimants finding that this was not shown.
When the Court of Appeal gave judgement in Okpabi it did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in a similar case which post-dated it. In Lungowe v Vedanta (2019) (“Vedanta”) nearly 2,000 affected citizens of Zambia brought UK proceedings against mining company Vedanta and its Zambian subsidiary. The jurisdiction issue in Vedanta was analogous to Okpabi: the claimants had to show that Vedanta owed an arguable duty of care in respect of personal injury and property damage emanating from the operation of Vedanta’s Zambian copper mine, for the claim to proceed in the UK.
The Supreme Court in Vedanta clarified the legal principles shaping the circumstances in which UK-based parent companies owe an arguable duty of care in respect of overseas subsidiaries. It stated that this duty is shaped by ordinary principles of tortious negligence; corporate parents and their responsibility in respect of subsidiaries in their group is no special category. What is key is “the extent to [and the way in] which…the parent availed itself of the opportunity to take over, intervene in, control, supervise or advise the [subsidiary]” (Lord Briggs). Crucially, the Supreme Court also found that publicly-available corporate group policies and standards in which parent companies profess control and supervision in their structure, irrespective of whether these are adopted in practice, support the finding of an arguable duty of care from the parent company towards others in its group.
This provided vital context for the Supreme Court in Okpabi.
Returning, to Okpabi, the Supreme Court restated principles from Vedanta about proportionality in civil litigation that is at jurisdiction stage. Importantly, “[m]ini-trials” to determine whether the English courts have jurisdiction must be avoided (para 21). Lord Hamblen’s judgment restates that judicial restraint should be observed:
“the analytical focus [in jurisdiction challenges] should be on the particulars of claim and whether, on the basis that the facts there alleged are true, the cause of action asserted has a real prospect of success.” (para 22)
The claimants had made very extensive assertions of fact relating to RDS’ control over SPDC, including from group-wide policies, specific policies regarding RDS’ role in the event of oil spills and from evidence of three former RDS employees. Lord Hamblen continued that unless the alleged facts are “demonstrably untrue or unsupportable”, generally it is inappropriate for “a defendant to dispute the facts alleged through evidence of its own”. Indeed, “[d]oing so may well just show that there is a triable issue” (also para 22).
On this issue, of the proper threshold for the claimants to meet to show that the UK courts could have jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal in Okpabi erred in law. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal was drawn into an inquiry weighing the evidence. It made determinations connected to contested evidence that were not appropriate at jurisdiction; that was a matter for the substantive trial. To resolve whether the UK court has jurisdiction the court should ordinarily resolve matters by reference to the pleaded case, not by making “findings” from the evaluation of disputed evidence (paras 103 - 109).
A claimants’ access to disclosure from a defendant is extremely limited at jurisdiction stage. Because the High Court and Court of Appeal in Okpabi permitted a mini-trial, they discounted the value of future disclosure (para 126). In fairness, neither had the benefit of Lord Briggs’ comments on disclosure in Vedanta. Lord Briggs was clear that the court cannot ignore reasonable grounds, at jurisdiction stage, that further disclosure or evidence will assist the court in due course (from para 45 of Vedanta)).
In Okpabi the claimants had access to two key RDS documents at the Court of Appeal that they had not at the High Court trial. One was released by a whistleblower and never disclosed by RDS; the other was disclosed by RDS at the final day of the Court of Appeal hearing following a court order. Both documents showed RDS’s corporate structures and indicated control and supervision by RDS over SPDC. Neither were addressed “meaningfully” by Shell’s witnesses at the High Court (para 135). The claimants also pointed to extensive documentation that could assist their case disclosed in the Netherlands in parallel proceedings against RDS, that it had not yet been required to disclose in the UK.
Importantly in Okpabi, the Supreme Court was at pains to emphasise the importance of internal corporate documents in disputes relating to parent company liability, both generally and in the case before it (from para 129).
The Supreme Court additionally clarified points (obiter) emanating from its Vedanta judgment:
The judgment in Okpabi is a major step forward for those seeking access to justice for corporate human rights abuses.
In warning against the conduct of “mini-trials” and against defendants taking extensive disputes on fact at jurisdiction stage, the Supreme Court has helped clarify and to some extent lower the hurdles that claimants must meet. It also sends an important signal to the lower courts that they must take into account that disclosure obligations triggered at trial stage may well assist claimants which weighs in favour of allowing jurisdiction: this is especially so since both internal and publicly-available corporate documents, showing the parent’s commitments in practice and principle to its group, are key to such disputes.
As noted by Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Advisor at the ICJ:
“The emphasis of the Supreme Court on the relevance of evidence from internal company documents is 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, including notably human rights abuses and environmental destruction.”
Significant questions, however, do remain. It is credit to the claimants’ tenacity that they pursued essential disclosure that the ordinary jurisdiction framework under the CPRs did not grant them. Had they not been assisted by a whistleblower, and high-profile proceedings in the Netherlands, they would have been forced to plead partly in the dark. Additionally, the primary test in this area remains Lord Briggs’ Vedanta test regarding the parent’s advice, control or supervision over its subsidiary, for which there are no set industry practices or standards, notwithstanding the UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights and the OECD’s mandatory due diligence guidelines.
Mark Dearn, Director of CORE, considers:
“It’s now crucial that governments step up to the plate to create new corporate accountability laws so that businesses know exactly what is expected of them.”
At Kingsley Napley we have argued elsewhere for the need for a corporate accountability framework which provides for mandatory human rights due diligence laws and a regulatory enforcement mechanism.
The Kingsley Napley team acting for CORE and the ICJ comprised Sophie Kemp (Partner), Nick De Mulder (Associate), Nick Wrightson (Senior Associate) and Bianca Patulea (Paralegal). The expert counsel team was Timothy Otty QC (Blackstone Chambers), Robert McCorquodale (Brick Court Chambers), Tim Johnston (Brick Court Chambers), George Molyneaux (Blackstone Chambers), Lise Smit (BIICL).
The clients’ press release is available here.
Sophie Kemp is an experienced public lawyer, advising on major public inquiries, judicial review, and modern slavery and human rights. Sophie acts for individuals, charities, companies and regulatory bodies in judicial review litigation. She has considerable investigative and public inquiry experience representing individuals, institutions, charities, public figures and senior professionals in major public inquiries, inquests, IOPC investigations, and before Select Committees.
Nick De Mulder is an Associate in our Public Law team. Nick has assisted on a high-value Human Rights Act claim and on claims for judicial review of immigration authorities, a government agency and local authorities. He has assisted a charity and companies on GDPR and Data Protection Act compliance and on responding to Subject Access Requests. He has also assisted a defendant, and various witnesses, in preparing for and attending criminal trials.
The Supreme Court has, unusually, recently heard, and now delivered judgment on, an appeal concerning costs in statutory appeal and judicial review cases. It is unusual for costs issues to be considered significant enough to merit consideration by the Supreme Court and, not least given the outcome of the appeal – and of course it is easy to be wise after the event – it is something of a surprise that permission to appeal was granted in the first place.
To meet widespread concern about vulnerable workers and working conditions in industries including agriculture, fashion, food and waste disposal, last month (June 2021) the government set up a new watchdog to take over responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum wage and protecting agency workers.
A Data Subject Access Request, or DSAR, is any request made by an individual for their own personal data. While they are quick and easy for an individual to make, many long hours and significant resources from your organisation will be needed in order to properly respond.
Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.
Over the past few weeks there has been a steady stream of disturbing stories alleging sexual harassment and sexual abuse of children attending a variety of schools across the country, not just incidents involving children and adults but in many cases peer-on-peer abuse.
The SRA introduced a new assessment and early resolution process focusing on upfront engagement and delivering, where possible, earlier outcomes on concerns reported to it. Additionally, in February 2019, the SRA introduced a revised Enforcement Strategy, setting out its approach to enforcement and the factors it will take into account when considering whether regulatory action is needed.
On 18 March 2021 the government published the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and began a public consultation on reforms to judicial review. This blog provides some initial thoughts on these important developments. For background on the IRAL see our introductory blog here.
The COVID-19 crisis has forced sports clubs, schools, universities and charities to rapidly change their approaches to coaching, teaching and support work. The regulations on social distancing have forced organisations to innovate; services which had previously been offered mostly or wholly in person were rapidly shifted online during “lockdown 1” and will return online at least for the duration of “lockdown 3”. If the vaccine rollout has the desired effect there will no doubt be some return to “traditional” methods, but it seems very unlikely that the changes brought about by the pandemic will be completely reversed. In this blog, Claire Parry from Kingsley Napley’s Regulatory team and Fred Allen from the Public Law team look at the challenges organisations face engaging with children online.
This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.
Globally, a trend is taking shape towards legislation that asks more from businesses than the reporting obligations of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, in the area of business and human rights.
The government has now approved the supply of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The reason they have been able to do this so quickly is because they have taken advantage of the temporary authorisation regime laid out by the Human Medicine Regulations of 2012 and 2020. The 2012 Regulations were updated in 2020 specifically to facilitate the smooth rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. In the public consultation preceding the introduction of these updated regulations, several respondents raised concerns regarding unlicensed vaccines and immunity from civil liability. In practice, very little is known about these regulations and their application. This article seeks to shed some light on the temporary authorisation regime and suggest a means of alleviating concerns in the context of “vaccine hesitancy”.
The Internal Market Bill (the “Bill”) has caused a dramatic fallout at home and abroad. It has faced massive defeats in the House of Lords over the month on November. It was the reported reason behind the UK’s most senior legal civil servant announcing his departure from the Government Legal Service.
As the end of the Brexit transition period draws near, complexities associated with navigating cross-border regulatory regimes have been increasingly brought to the fore. The Law Society of Ireland’s announcement last week, confirming a ‘physical presence’ requirement for solicitors intending to practise in Ireland, has highlighted wider post-Brexit issues surrounding residency requirements and recognition of qualifications for regulated professionals on the British/Irish border.
It is now more than two years since the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR came into force, significantly increasing the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). With the passing of the Act, the ICO gained the power to issue fines amounting to millions of pounds and increased powers to bring criminal prosecutions against organisations who fail to comply with the data protection regime.
On 31 July 2020 the Government launched an Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘the Review’). The panel of lawyers and academics, chaired by former Minister of State for Civil Justice Lord Edward Faulks QC (‘the Panel’), has been tasked with examining the potential need for reform of Judicial Review and to ‘consider whether the right balance is being struck between the rights of citizens to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government.’
The Bloomsbury Institute was fighting to survive financially after the Office for Students refused its application for registration. It brought a judicial review challenge which revealed that an unpublished policy had been followed. The policy had been formulated by an official who did not have the power to make the relevant decisions.
In a February 2019 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that, under international law, the decolonisation of Mauritius by the UK has never been lawfully completed and the UK must therefore “end its administration” of the Chagos islands.
Interpreting legislation is both an art and a science. This recent Court of Appeal case illustrates how judges do it in the context of the statutory scheme used to introduce controversial voter ID pilot schemes.
Inquest proceedings, like other legal proceedings in the UK, have been significantly affected by social distancing restrictions and advice arising from the COVID-19 crisis. This blog looks briefly at the impact of the Coronavirus Act 2020 on proceedings, and examines the Chief Coroner’s guidance notes to coroners working during the crisis.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility