Alame & Ors v Shell PLC (formerly known as Royal Dutch Shell PLC) & Anor

Group litigation does not attract special disclosure principles, although phased disclosure may be appropriate. Disclosure must be tethered to the pleaded case and the factual issues in dispute. An imbalance of information between the parties is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for wide-ranging disclosure. Specific disclosure requires relevance and proportionality to be established first. Where pleadings allege multiple unidentified events over a wide area and period, the court may manage the case by reference to the issues presently capable of determination, while remaining open to revising disclosure directions after preliminary issues or amendments. Disclosure intended merely to help a claimant identify and formulate an unpleaded case risks becoming a fishing expedition.

These group actions arose from claims concerning oil pollution in the Niger Delta. The court had previously concluded that, because the pleadings did not identify the necessary causal links between particular pollution events, alleged breaches and loss, the claims could not yet be managed through lead claimants and had to proceed on an all-or-nothing basis.

The December 2023 case management hearing concerned the sequencing of a preliminary issues trial on Nigerian law and statutory construction, a later factual trial concerning contamination, consequences and causes, and disclosure. The central issues were whether disclosure should extend beyond the presently pleaded case, whether Shell PLC should search for documents concerning the operations of its subsidiary, and whether specific disclosure could be ordered to address an alleged information imbalance.

1. Disposition. The court directed that the Bille claims proceed first to a preliminary issues trial, followed by a factual trial addressing the three Cs: contamination, consequences and causes. Specific disclosure was ordered in substantial part. The application for broad standard disclosure was not granted at this stage.
2. Applicable principles. Per Mrs Justice May, group litigation attracts no special disclosure principles, although timing or phasing may be appropriate. Standard disclosure under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 31.6(a) and (b), is determined by reference to the pleadings. Specific disclosure engages the overriding objective and proportionality, and requires relevance to the pleaded case and factual issues in dispute.
3. Information imbalance. The observations in Cavallari v Mercedes Benz Group AG [2023] EWHC 1888 (KB) did not create a free-standing entitlement to disclosure merely because one party possessed more information. Relevance must first be established. Disclosure designed to enable the claimants to identify events and formulate causal links absent from the pleadings would be disproportionate and a fishing expedition.
4. Scope of disclosure. The present all-or-nothing case justified disclosure directed to the three Cs in Bille during 2011–2013. RDS was required to disclose documents bearing on those issues. Because there was evidence that Joint Investigation Visit reports might be incomplete or inaccurate, searches could not be confined to incidents with known numbers. Material indicating additional spill events, including relevant monitoring or pipeline data, was potentially disclosable.
5. The court declined to order disclosure of the Manuals of Organisational Authorities at this stage, as their relevance concerned a later issue about RDS’s organisation and control. The court remained willing to reconsider disclosure and case management after the preliminary issues trial or any permitted amendments.

This was a first-instance case management decision. It was to be read with the court’s earlier judgment in the same litigation, [2023] EWHC 2961.