Supreme Court rules that Nigerian communities can have their case against Shell heard in the English courts

12 February 2021

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.
 

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.

Facts of Okpabi

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.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vedanta

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.

Okpabi - the evidential threshold at jurisdiction stage

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).

The importance of disclosure

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).

Other Vedanta clarifications

The Supreme Court additionally clarified points (obiter) emanating from its Vedanta judgment:

  1. A parent company’s issuance of group wide policies or standards can, of itself in some circumstances, give rise to a duty of care. The Court of Appeal in Okpabi erred when it indicated otherwise.
  2. The exercise of control by a parent company is merely a starting point, when considering whether the parent took over or shared management of the relevant activity with the subsidiary.
  3. Generalised assumptions should not be made when considering the tortious liability of a parent company to those affected; this can be determined under general principles requiring no more “rigorous analysis beyond that appropriate to any summary [jurisdiction] judgment application in a relatively complex case” (para 60).

Comment

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.

You can see our press release by clicking here and Sophie has also been quoted in Energy Live news on 15 February 2021 and New Law Journal on 16 February 2021.

About the authors

Sophie Kemp is an experienced public lawyer, advising on major public inquiriesjudicial 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.

 

Latest blogs & news

The ICO’s Enforcement of the PECRs – what powers are at its disposal?

Complaining about a PECR breach to the ICO, especially about an unwanted marketing communication, is quick and easy for the affected person. Meanwhile for an organisation at the sharp end of a complaint, the PECRs enforcement regime is not straightforward to untangle. In this blog, we outline the ICO’s specific enforcement regime when investigating breaches of the PECRs.

The (Long) Covid Inquiry – the challenge of complying with Article 2 in timing the Covid Inquiry

The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has published its long awaited draft terms of reference, and a consultation on those proposed terms. The final terms of reference are of considerable importance to those taking an interest in the Inquiry, as set out here by Stephen Parkinson

Case Note: challenging consultations in judicial review proceedings - R (oao Binder and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWHC 105 (Admin)

The Administrative Court has recently upheld a challenge to a ‘consultation’ undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) prior to the publication of the National Disability Strategy. Strikingly the DWP gave evidence that it had not been intending to carry out a consultation – but Mr Justice Griffiths held that, as a matter of substance (as opposed to intention), there had in fact been a consultation; and that, (unsurprisingly as it was not a standard that it thought it had to meet) the DWP had failed to meet the legal requirements for a fair and adequate consultation.

 

The Covid-19 Inquiry: the Consultation on the Terms of Reference

In December 2021, the Prime Minister appointed Baroness Heather Hallett DBE as Chair of a statutory public inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic across the UK. The announcement concerning the inquiry stated that there would be a public consultation on the draft terms of reference. This blog discusses the likely approach and scope of that consultation.

Data Protection reform: A new direction for charities?

Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the Government wishes to reform the data protection legislation within this country in order to ‘unlock the power of data.’ For charities, does this mean the painful prospect of reworking their existing GDPR compliance regime or the promise of a lighter regulatory load?

Why Companies with Supply Chains in Xinjiang and China Need to Act Now

It’s a year since the UK Government announced business measures over human rights abuses in the Xinjiang province of China. In this piece we reflect on those measures and what might come next. We also look at what action prudent businesses should take now if they are concerned about products from Xinjiang in their supply chain, or how products they export to China are being used.

Data: A New Direction - Research, Re-use and Responsibility

High on the Government’s wish list for data protection reform is the reduction of legislative barriers to ‘responsible innovation,’ particularly within the field of scientific research. Due to perceived complexity and lack of clarity, it is feared that organisations either choose not to conduct research at all or rely on unnecessarily burdensome consent processes. This blog considers the likely impact of the Government’s ideas

Consultation on ICO Powers Shows the Breadth of the Regulator’s Powers

On 20 December 2021 the ICO launched a consultation seeking views on three documents, which together demonstrate its wide-ranging powers to undertake investigatory, regulatory and enforcement action.  

The Terms of Reference for the Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry

As we await the publication of the terms of reference for the UK wide Covid-19 Inquiry, in this blog I consider the key features of the recently published terms of reference for the Scottish Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Covid-19 Inquiry – the importance of the terms of reference

Any day now the Covid-19 Inquiry will publish draft terms of reference. This will be a significant event.  Once agreed, the terms of reference will determine the scope and length of the inquiry which is due to begin its work in the Spring.  In turn this will have a direct impact on how valuable the inquiry turns out to be.  

Data: A new direction - Access to personal data

In this blog series, we will review the key proposals for reform of data protection law within the Government’s consultation paper ‘Data: A New Direction’. We will consider how far the Government will stray from the current path and signpost some potential pitfalls and practicalities for consideration along the way

The right to equality in fertility treatment

A same-sex couple have commenced a significant test case against a branch of the NHS fertility sector for discrimination against them on grounds of their sexuality. 

Court considers that intransigent public inquiry witnesses will often give evidence once they have been compelled to attend

In a 16 November 2021 blog, I described how refusing to give evidence to a public inquiry might play out. Another new case, Chairman of the Manchester Arena Inquiry v Romdhan [2021] EWHC 3274 (Admin), reinforces my view. Potential witnesses in next year’s coronavirus (Covid-19) inquiry take note.

 

Data: A New Direction - Unleashing the transformational power AI?

In this blog series, we will review the key proposals for reform of data protection law within the Government’s consultation paper ‘Data: A New Direction’. We will consider how far the Government will stray from the current path and signpost some potential pitfalls and practicalities for consideration along the way.

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill: Proposed reform of Judicial Review

Attempts to narrow the scope of judicial review have long been on the Conservative Party’s political agenda. Following the Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘IRAL’) and the subsequent government consultation on reform of judicial review, the then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, introduced the Judicial Review and Courts Bill (‘the Bill’) to the House of Commons on 21 July 2021. The Bill is making its way through Parliament and is currently at the committee stage.

As we highlighted in our earlier blog following the Bill’s announcement, the proposed reforms are, at first sight, milder than had been feared. Nevertheless, the Bill proposes to make significant amendments to the remedies available in judicial review proceedings and to also limit the court’s jurisdiction.

Data protection law reform: A new direction?

In this blog series, we will review the key proposals for reform of data protection law within the Government’s consultation paper ‘Data: A New Direction’. We will consider how far the Government will stray from the current path and signpost some potential pitfalls and practicalities for consideration along the way.

We begin with the Government’s proposals for creating a ‘whitelist’ of legitimate interests which always provide a lawful basis for processing under the UK GDPR. 

Can you refuse to give evidence to a public inquiry?

Individuals asked to give evidence to public inquiries often wonder whether they really have a choice. The case of Chairman of the Manchester Arena Inquiry v Taghdi [2021] EWHC 2878 (Admin) illustrates how refusing to participate might play out. Potential witnesses in next year’s coronavirus (Covid-19) inquiry take note.

Having our cake and eating it: Parliamentary sovereignty in light of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic

One of the key themes of the Brexit campaign was for the UK to retain Parliamentary sovereignty, or “Take Back Control.” This blog focuses on that aspect of Brexit and revisits previous discussions around delegated legislation and Parliamentary sovereignty to assess the effect of the past 9 months on our Parliament.

Reform of the Human Rights Act: The Lord Chancellor’s “mechanism” to correct judgements

At the recent Conservative party conference, the new Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab, signalled his intention to “overhaul” the Human Rights Act 1998 (the ‘Act’). It has since been reported that he is working on a “mechanism” to allow the Government to introduce ad hoc legislation to correct court judgements that ministers believe to be incorrect. Whilst the precise details of any mechanism remain to be seen, this notion is constitutionally problematic in that it potentially grants the executive wide powers to override the judiciary.

Preparation for Public Inquiries - Webinar Summary

In light of the announcement that an independent inquiry into the Government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic will begin in spring 2022, Kingsley Napley hosted a webinar last week on the theme of Preparing for Public Inquiries in conjunction with Blackstone Chambers and FTI Consulting. For anyone who missed this event, a recording is available here (LINK) and we have also prepared the summary below.  

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

You may also be interested in:

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility