Jalla & Ors v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd & Ors

Where limitation is an essential part of a jurisdiction challenge, the court may determine limitation and jurisdiction together as preliminary issues. It need not order a separate, earlier hearing of narrower jurisdiction questions where that risks multiplying complexity, cost and delay.

Pending appeals do not generally justify postponing case management. The court should proceed in a way that preserves flexibility to adjust directions if an appeal materially changes the issues. Case-management questions concerning representative proceedings or proportionality should ordinarily be addressed after jurisdiction has been determined.

The judgment concerned case management in three sets of proceedings arising from the 2011 Bonga oil spill off the Nigerian coast. The claims were brought in negligence, nuisance and liability under Rylands v Fletcher against Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd.

Earlier orders had directed preliminary trials concerning the date of damage, the applicable limitation periods and limitation as a defence. There were also pending appeals concerning continuing nuisance and the representative nature of the claims. The central issue was whether to determine separate jurisdictional or threshold issues first, or to proceed directly to expanded preliminary trials addressing limitation and related jurisdiction issues.

1. Case-management approach. The court applied the overriding objective in Part 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, including proportionality, expedition, saving expense and the appropriate use of court resources.
2. Limitation and jurisdiction. Limitation was a material and central issue because it formed part of the jurisdiction challenge in the main proceedings and was likely to be central to the challenges in the protective and Akinruntan proceedings. The court therefore adopted and adapted the existing directions, expanding the preliminary issues trial to include the same limitation issues in all three proceedings and, potentially, outstanding jurisdiction issues.
3. Separate threshold hearings. A separate hearing on authorisation was not ordered, although clarity about authority to represent thousands of claimants was required. Issues under rule 19.6 concerning representative proceedings should await the Court of Appeal’s decision on the related appeal. Questions of fair and proportionate determination, abuse of process and the practical constitution of the proceedings should likewise be addressed after jurisdiction had been determined.
4. Pending appeals. The continuing-nuisance appeal might affect limitation for nuisance claims, but not negligence claims. The representative-claims appeal did not directly determine limitation or jurisdiction. The court would not defer all case management until the appeals were resolved, but would retain flexibility to revise directions if necessary.
5. Orders. The preliminary issues were expanded to cover the three proceedings. Revised directions were contemplated for pleadings, factual and expert evidence, with liberty to apply concerning the status of the Akinruntan proceedings.

• High Court (Technology and Construction Court): Earlier interlocutory judgments and orders had determined jurisdiction issues subject to limitation, struck out representative elements of the main proceedings, and directed preliminary issues concerning limitation. The present court expanded those directions to the related proceedings.
• Court of Appeal: Appeals concerning continuing nuisance and the representative nature of the claims were pending at the date of this judgment.