In Alame v Shell Plc, the Court of Appeal addressed the handling of oil pollution claims by Nigerian communities against Shell.
The claimants were communities in Nigeria whose land and water had been contaminated by oil pollution. They alleged that the contamination resulted from oil spills from pipelines and associated infrastructure owned by Shell.
The claimants argued that some spills were documented while others were not. Shell contended that the major sources of pollution were crude oil theft, artisanal refining, and associated spills due to third-party interference (TPI).
The High Court allowed the claimants to amend their pleadings to include additional oil spills and losses from illegal refining and TPI. However, the judge declared that the claims had to proceed as "global claims" due to insufficient particularisation of causation.
This meant that the claimants could recover losses caused by multiple events if Shell was responsible for all of them, but the claim would generally fail if an event for which Shell was not responsible materially contributed to the loss. The judge also ruled that the claims could not be organised by lead cases.
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision on several grounds.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to allow amendments, finding that they did not introduce new causes of action but were further particulars of the original claim. The duties and alleged breaches remained unchanged.
They set aside the declaration requiring the claims to proceed as global claims. It emphasised that no judge or court could mandate a specific method for establishing a case. Litigants have the right to determine how to prove their claims unless the point is reached where a claim is to be dismissed or stayed.
The Court of Appeal also set aside the declaration that the claims could not be organised by lead cases. It highlighted the need for a procedural approach that ensures fair access to information and allows the selection of lead cases to resolve the litigation effectively. This provided significant insights into the handling of environmental claims.
"No judge or court is entitled to require a party to establish their case by a particular method. The litigant's right to bring the claim and their freedom to determine how they intend to prove their claim should normally be respected."
This case is significant for its implications on how environmental claims are handled, particularly in ensuring that claimants have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly.
The defendants' appeal was dismissed and the claimants' appeal was allowed.
