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

High Court imposes positive operational duties on state authorities in environmental pollution context

On Thursday 16 September 2021 in the High Court, Fordham J handed down judgment in R (on the application of Richards) v Environment Agency and Walleys Quarry Limited [2021] EWHC 2501 (Admin) (“Richards”). The High Court declared that positive operational duties had been triggered on, and had been breached by, the Environment Agency (“EA”) under the European Convention of Human Rights Act (“ECHR”): Article 2 right to life and Article 8 right to respect for private and family life. The duties arose and were breached because the EA had failed to implement Public Health England (“PHE”) recommendations and advice as to dangerous hydrogen sulphide emissions emanating from a landfill site.

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? Part 1: Fixed and flexible ‘legitimate interests’

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.  

What is Next for GDPR in the UK, is Change on the Horizon?

The General Data Protection Regulation (known to everyone as the GDPR) is probably the most famous piece of legislation to come from the EU. It was and is incredibly ambitious in its scope, and shapes the way we engage with organisations both online and in the real world. When the UK formally withdrew from the EU, GDPR became retained EU law and continued to apply as before. The government have recently announced that they want to reform data protection legislation, but substantial deregulation might be an unrealistic ambition.

Case Note – challenging the Court’s jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings: R (Girgis) v Joint Committee on Intercollegiate Examinations [2021] EWHC 2256 (Admin)

The Administrative Court of England & Wales has recently considered a challenge to its jurisdiction to hear a judicial review claim on the basis (asserted by the defendant) that the claim should be heard at the Court of Session in Scotland. As explained below, the challenge was unsuccessful, but the case is interesting not just because of the Court’s conclusion on the substantive issue but also because of His Honour Judge Simon’s approach to the “technical” (procedural) issues the case gave rise to.

New guidance encourages judicial review practitioners to be concise, succinct and prepared

Earlier this year, changes to Practice Direction 54A (covering judicial review) and 54B (covering urgent applications) came into effect. This blog will consider the impact that the changes have had on the procedure for judicial review, before turning to a recent example of the perils of failing to follow the rules.

Can you devise an effective ouster clause to exclude a category of decision making from judicial review?

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill contains a new ‘ouster clause’ designed to prevent judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decisions on certain applications for permission to appeal against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal. This blog explores why drafting legislation to restrict judicial review is so difficult.

The UK Supreme Court has confirmed the principles for judicial review of policies

R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 and R (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38

Two linked Supreme Court judgments provide a reminder to claimants that challenges to policies should focus on whether the policies authorise or approve violations of the law. The court acknowledges that policies are issued to promote practical objectives and the standards set for reviewing them must not be unduly demanding.

Case Note – costs of interested parties in judicial review proceedings: CPRE Kent v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government UK/SC 2019/0174

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.

Regulating working conditions: a ‘one stop shop’ approach to tackling modern slavery

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.

Data Subject Access Requests: The Do’s and Don’ts for Charitable Organisations

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.

Judicial Review Reform – waiting for the sting

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.

Safeguarding - 5 golden principles for school leaders

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.

A review of the SRA's Upholding Professional Standards Report 2018/19

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. 

Government Launches Public Consultation on Reforms to Judicial Review

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.

Coaching, Teaching and Support Work in Lockdown: Safeguarding and Data Protection considerations when working with children online

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.

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