La Brea Environs Protectors v The Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago (Petrotrin) and another (Trinidad and Tobago)

Representative proceedings are a flexible procedural tool. The requirement that persons have the same or a similar interest is construed purposively, having regard to the overriding objective and the need to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The representative must have a sufficient interest and must be able to conduct the litigation in a way that protects the represented persons. The procedure cannot operate where the representative has no properly arguable claim or defence of its own, or where a conflict may arise. Even where the rule is satisfied, the court retains a discretion whether to permit representative proceedings. Adding individuals as claimants requires written consent and careful consideration of costs, limitation, necessity and promptitude.

Residents of La Brea alleged that oil spills from pipelines operated by Petrotrin caused pollution, personal injury, environmental harm and economic loss. They also alleged negligence by the Occupational Safety and Health Agency. The appellant, a body formed after the spills, brought and amended proceedings purportedly on behalf of 101 members.

The trial judge dismissed an application for the appellant to act as representative claimant, finding that it lacked a proper interest and did not share the same or a similar interest as the residents. The Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed the appeal on substantially the same grounds. The central issues were the scope of representative proceedings under Part 21 of the Consolidated Civil Proceedings Rules 2016, and whether the members should instead be added as claimants.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The residents themselves had the same or a similar interest in establishing liability for the oil spills and resulting loss, although their individual claims for damages might differ.
2. Part 21 of the Consolidated Civil Proceedings Rules 2016 requires a purposive approach. Its representative procedure is a flexible tool of convenience, but it must be capable of producing a judgment binding the represented persons on the relevant issue. The representative must not be placed in a position of conflict with those represented. The court retains a discretion whether representative proceedings are just and convenient.
3. The appellant had no sufficient interest. It did not exist when the spills occurred, had not identified any cause of action arising from them, had suffered no alleged economic loss, and owned no land said to have been interfered with. It therefore had no properly arguable claim or defence in which the relevant issues could be decided so as to bind the residents.
4. The alternative application to add or substitute the 101 members could not properly be granted on the material before the Board. Rule 19.5(4) required written consent, which was important because claimants might incur liability for costs. The Board also lacked satisfactory information about the necessity of joining all members, limitation, and whether the application had been made with reasonable promptitude.
5. The Board left any later, more limited application to be considered by the courts below in light of its judgment.

• Privy Council: appeal dismissed on 23 May 2022.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: appeal dismissed on 4 February 2019, substantially affirming the trial judge’s reasoning that the appellant lacked a sufficient interest and did not share the same or a similar interest with the represented residents.
• Trial court: Quinlan-Williams J dismissed the representative-proceedings application in written reasons dated 4 February 2019.