A claim against Shell over oil spills has been allowed to proceed to trial after proposed reamendments - factoring in an ‘all-spills’ inference - were found to not create a ‘material change’ in the case.

The case centres on crude oil spills which caused environmental damage including water and ground contamination in the Niger Delta region in Nigeria between 2011 and 2013. The claimants, the Billie community and other individuals, seek injunctive relief from Shell to carry out remediation work as well as damages. A liability trial is listed to begin in May 2027.

The claimants’ primary case is that the defendants are liable for all oil spills in the region during the relevant time; their secondary case is that the defendants are liable only for the 106 identified spills referred to in an annex.

In Alame & Ors v Shell Plc & Anor, Mrs Justice Lambert found permission was not needed for the claimant’s ‘causation amendments’ which introduce the ‘so-called primary claim’, finding the amendments did not introduce a ‘material change’ to the claim.

She added: ‘[The claimants] have set out their case with particularity. The defendants may not like that case and they complain that it generates an unfairness. But they know the case which they have to meet and, as they have accepted, it is not legally bad or unsound. It is a claim based on inference but that does not make it unlawful.

‘The primary case advanced by the claimants is not unclear or imprecise. It starts with specific damage in a particular location and, to the extent that this damage cannot be attributed to a specific spill, relies on an inference that it must have been caused by an unidentified spill for which the defendants are responsible. Whether such an inference can properly be drawn will depend on the evidence.

Read more

‘I am not satisfied that the claimants’ primary “all-spills” case, based upon proof of systemic breaches, proof of damage and inferential causation, represents a material departure from the claims which the claimants have historically advanced either in the High Court or Court of Appeal.’

Allowing the proposed amendment, the judge said the amendment would not cause ‘serious unfairness’ to the defendants.

She added: ‘Any potential unfairness can be accommodated by the court’s case management and trial management tools; any unfairness caused to the defendants by their having to address an inferential case in respect of unknown spills and their inability to call specific rebuttal evidence can be factored into the court’s common sense assessment of whether the claimants have discharged the burden of establishing the necessary inference.’

Finding the claim was not unarguable or bad in law, she allowed it to proceed to trial.

The claimant’s application for permission to pursue a claim for aggravated damages was also granted and will be dealt with in the liability trial.