ALAME & Others v ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC & Anor.

A group litigation framework does not relieve each claimant of the obligation to plead the material facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action. Where individual claims depend on different events, locations, dates or property interests, those matters must be identified sufficiently to define the issues and permit representative lead claimants to be selected. A global claim is permissible, but it carries the risk that the claim will fail if an unidentified material contribution is attributable to a cause for which the defendant is not liable. A Group Litigation Order should not be made until the common or related issues have been defined with sufficient specificity.

Four related claims concerned alleged environmental pollution in the Niger Delta caused by oil spills from pipelines and associated infrastructure. Claims against the parent company were advanced in negligence; claims against the Nigerian subsidiary included statutory breaches, negligence, nuisance, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and trespass.

The parties sought case-management directions, including a Group Litigation Order, transfer to the Queen’s Bench Division, group registers, cut-off dates and schedules of information. The court considered whether the individual claimants had provided enough information to identify the factual basis of each claim and to select representative lead claimants.

1. Group Litigation Order. The court was satisfied in principle that the Bille Individuals and Ogale Individuals claims were suitable for management under a GLO. However, the application was adjourned because the common or related issues had not been identified with sufficient specificity, as required by CPR 19.11(2)(b). The court indicated that transfer to the Queen’s Bench Division would be appropriate when the GLO was made.
2. Pleading requirements. CPR 16.4(1)(a) requires a concise statement of the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. Group litigation may use general pleadings, schedules or questionnaires, but each claimant must still provide the material facts specific to that claimant. The authorities on group litigation and pleading requirements supported that approach.
3. Global claims. A global claim is permissible, but it is inherently risky. The claimant must establish that all material causative events are events for which the defendant is liable. If a material contribution comes from a factor for which the defendant is not liable, the logic of the global claim is undermined.
4. Additional information. The claimants were ordered to provide, for both individual claims, details of the oil spill or spills relied on, the location of damage, the date of first impact, and the basis of any asserted ownership or exclusive possession of land. If particular spills or dates could not be identified, the claimants had to confirm that they would advance a global claim. In the Ogale Individuals Claim, they also had to confirm each claimant’s authority for Leigh Day to act.
5. The questionnaires had to be signed or otherwise confirmed. Statements of truth were not required from every individual claimant for the existing Replies and Part 18 responses.

The judgment records that jurisdictional challenges were initially upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court later held that there was an arguable duty of care sufficient to found jurisdiction and remitted the claims. The jurisdictional issues were subsequently resolved by agreement. This judgment determined the outstanding case-management applications.