Alame & Ors v Shell Plc & Anor

An environmental tort claim does not become an impermissible global claim merely because some causative events are unidentified and causation is proved by inference. Where claimants plead systemic breaches, prove damage and identify an evidential basis for connecting the two, the claim may proceed to trial. It is not an all-or-nothing claim if liability may be established for other proven breaches. Known events and sample areas may provide a meaningful evidential cohort. The court may account for evidential limitations and difficulties in rebutting the inference, while retaining the burden of proof on claimants. Difficulty in proving the effect of increased spill frequency, duration or volume is a matter for trial, not a reason to strike out. Amendments and evidence should be managed proportionately under the overriding objective.

The claims concern oil pollution and environmental damage in the Niger Delta arising from spills between 2011 and 2013. The decision concerned Bille community and individual claims against Shell Plc and Renaissance Africa Energy Company Ltd. Following disclosure, the claimants served amended pleadings advancing a primary case that systemic failures caused all relevant pollution, including unidentified spills, alongside a secondary case based on 106 identified spills. They also sought to amend their claim for aggravated damages.

The defendants argued that the primary case was a late and impermissible global claim, was insufficiently particularised and unfair, and should be struck out or refused permission. They also sought to defer the aggravated-damages issue until the quantum phase. The court determined whether permission was required or should be granted, whether the causation case obstructed the just disposal of the proceedings, and when evidence on aggravated damages should be heard.

Disposition. The primary causation amendment was not a material departure from the case historically advanced and did not require permission. Alternatively, permission would have been granted. The strike-out objection was refused. Permission was granted for the aggravated-damages amendment, with the issue to be addressed during the liability trial.

1. Causation pleading. The claim was not an impermissible global claim. A global claim in the relevant sense is an all-or-nothing claim which fails if the matters complained of are not proved in their entirety. These claims were different: failure to establish liability for one category of spill or breach would not necessarily defeat claims based on other breaches. The Court of Appeal’s earlier observations in [2024] EWCA Civ 1500 did not confine the claimants to identified spills.
2. Particularity and fairness. The primary case began with damage proved in particular locations and relied on an inference of unidentified causative spills only where the evidence supported it. The 106 identified spills provided a substantial and varied evidential cohort. The defendants had a target for evidence and cross-examination through the location of damage, the relevant infrastructure and the known spills. The court could take account of evidential limitations and inherent difficulties in calling positive rebuttal evidence. Limitation and different liability regimes were fact-sensitive matters for evaluation after the evidence.
3. Trial and strike-out. Difficulty in proving what part of the damage resulted from increased spill frequency, duration or volume did not make that case untriable or bad in law. The burden remained on the claimants. The statement of case set out a fully pleaded and legally sound cause of action, and no obstruction to the just disposal of the proceedings was shown under rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
4. Amendment discretion. Applying the principles identified in Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759, the court considered the balance of injustice, timing, prejudice, clarity, detail, arguability and prospects of success. The amendments were sufficiently clear and arguable, did not threaten the trial date and could be managed without serious unfairness.
5. Aggravated damages. Deferring the issue until the quantum phase risked substantial delay and the recall of witnesses whose credibility might already have been assessed. Despite the additional resources required and the lateness of the amendment, the overriding objective and proportionality favoured dealing with the issue during the liability trial.

• Supreme Court. The jurisdictional challenge in the underlying litigation was finally resolved in Okpabi and others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and another [2021] UKSC 3 .
• Court of Appeal. The claimants appealed the case-management approach treating the claims as global claims. The appeal was allowed in the judgment of 6 December 2024, reported at [2024] EWCA Civ 1500 .