In Alame & Ors v Shell PLC & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1500 Stuart-Smith LJ delivered the unanimous judgment on the appeal against a range of procedural issues which I have previously discussed here. Judgments appealed are [2024] EWHC 510 (KB) and [2023] EWHC 2961 (KB)
The Rome II evidence and procedure issue which I signaled in my earlier post does not feature in the appeal.
Essentially the issue in the case is the extent to which claimants in litigation viz diffuse, often legacy pollution, need to show a causal link between their damage and individual acts of pollution. The stricter that requirement, the stronger the polluter’s get out off jail free card.
The first instance judge had ordered a ‘global claims’ trial. Stuart-Smith LJ [17]:
the concept of “global claims” originates in decisions of the English and Scottish courts concerned with the proof of causation in contractual disputes relating to delay or disruption in the course of building projects. In broadest outline, it allows that causation may be established by showing that a loss is caused by multiple events, for all of which the Defendant is responsible, even if the loss attributable to individual events cannot be identified. … [I]t is inherent in the concept of “global claims” that causation will not be established on this basis if a material contribution to the claimant’s loss is made by an act or event for which the defendant is not responsible: it is in that sense an “all-or-nothing” approach to causation and liability.
As claimants’ solicitors, Leigh Day, put it
Under a Global Claim, the Bille and Ogale communities would have had to prove that Shell was responsible for 100% of the pollution that has impacted their environment. If there were any other sources of pollution for which Shell was not responsible, the claim would fail entirely.
In response to an earlier order, each individual claimant was to advance an SOI or Schedule of Information. [24] each SOI
i) Identifies all of the particular spills that the individual claimant relies upon, with such precision as they are presently able to achieve;
ii) Indicates that they rely upon the VPOCs (the Voluntary Particulars of claim in regard of Causation); or
iii) Identifies one or more spills or possible spills without limiting their claim to those spills and while also relying on the VPOCs.
“Claimants explain their inability to provide further particularisation of their case on causation as being not least because of (a) the difficulties imposed by the migration of oil, which renders the attribution of damage to particular spills “invariably not straightforward and in many instances impossible without specialist expert analysis and assistance”; and (b) the Claimants being “members of a rural Nigerian fishing community with limited resources, a lack of expertise, and the absence of a contemporaneous record of the dates, locations and volumes of all spills which have occurred in Bille.” ” [23] further detail is given on some elements of the particulars of claim (POC):
“7. For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimants do not advance a “global claim”. The Claimants’ position is that the principles described in construction law cases … have no application to their claims because, inter alia:
a. As a matter of English law, the concept of a global claim is unique to contractual disputes in the context of construction law, and it has no application to common law tort claims concerning environmental damage;
b. The claims are governed by Nigerian law and to the Claimants’ knowledge the concept of a “global claim” has never been referred to in Nigerian case law; and
c. The Claimants do not, and have never purported to, rely upon the concept of a global claim.”
(Point b, nota bene, is where Rome II comes in).
[30] Mr Richard Hermer KC (now attorney-general) had argued that further particulars would be given once the necessary disclosure obtained and once expert evidence procured. [31] the first instance judge, while rejecting Shell’s application to strike out the claims,
“was satisfied that the Claimants’ cases were “not at present sufficiently underpinned by information which enables the court or the parties to link the event(s) to breach and breach to loss, even by inference.” Having expressed concern (at [39]) that the Claimants’ route to selecting cases would not reliably cover all the issues arising on an events-based claim she turned at [41] to the suggestion that the Claimants’ claims should proceed as “global claims”, tracing some of the relevant authorities as she did so. She concluded (at [42]) that there was no relevant distinction to be drawn between construction claims and environmental claims and that “on the present state of the pleadings and associated information” all bar 5 of the Claimants’ cases were “global claims.” “
The Court of Appeal had to hold on a variety of issues advanced by both claimants and defendants, all of them procedural in nature. Arguably the most eye-catching issue is the one on the global claim. [77] Claimants intend to assert and prove a link between their loss and damage and a specific event for which the Defendants are alleged to be responsible. However [78] they
openly acknowledge and assert that they cannot plead (let alone prove) such a case at the moment. That does not mean that they are pursuing a global claim. What it means is that the Claimants cannot progress this very substantial litigation on the basis of the information they have. They assert that there is reason to believe that there is further information in existence that is not at present available to them but which, if they had it and had the benefit of appropriately supportive expert evidence, would enable them to plead and prove a case adopting conventional principles of causation. It may be that they will never be in a position to do so, in which case this litigation will fail. It is easy to see that there are formidable logistical and evidential difficulties for the Claimants to overcome; but that is the route they have chosen.
[79] the Court of Appeal swiftly sets aside the first declaration by the first instance judge that “the Claimants’ claims are to be progressed on the basis that they are “global claims”, i.e. “all-or-nothing” claims.” It does so on the basis of the continuously pleaded and written assertion by claimants that they are not advancing the claims as such a ‘global claim’. And, [75]
There is a short and direct route to the conclusion that this declaration must be set aside. No judge or court is entitled to require a party to establish their case by a particular method. A party should be permitted to formulate their claims as they wish, not forced into a straitjacket (or corner or cul-de-sac) of the judge’s or their opponent’s choosing. It will be for the trial judge to determine whether the party can establish their claim:
As a result the status of “global claims” in English law and whether such an approach could ever appropriately be applied to environmental claims such as those being brought by the Claimants, is not held on, “Still less would it be appropriate in this judgment to address the question whether such an approach could have validity under Nigerian law.”
[Note [98] Males LJ (who like Bean LJ, is in agreement with Stuart-Smith LJ), flagging the interesting causation issue that will follow at trial:
What the Claimants will need to prove in order to make good their claims must depend on the relevant principles of Nigerian law, including the applicable principles relating to causation. There was some debate before us as to the principles of causation which would apply under English law. We were referred, for example, to an interesting article by Professor Jane Stapleton suggesting that in a case where an indivisible loss is caused by multiple factors, an “extended but-for test” may now apply, so that a claimant need only prove that the factor for which the defendant is responsible made a contribution to the loss (Unnecessary and Insufficient Factual Causes, Journal of Tort Law (2023)). It is, as I understand it, the Claimants’ position that this is all they need to prove in the present case, but whether that position is sound as a matter of Nigerian law remains to be decided.]
The second declaration on which the appeal was allowed, was the first instance judge’s declaration that Claimants’ pleaded case precluded the case management of the litigation being organised by reference to the selection of lead claimants.
Here the Court of Appeal emphasises the inherent inequality of arms in the litigation, despite both parties having excellent counsel throughout: [81]:
Despite the Claimants having the benefit of legal representation of the highest calibre, there is a substantial inequality of arms in the litigation. Two particular aspects of that inequality can be mentioned specifically here. First, there is a major inequality in access to information. The evidence submitted by the Claimants suggests that the Defendants have considerable quantities of relevant information that are not available to the Claimants. The Defendants’ primary response is to shield behind the submission that the Claimants have not particularised their case properly. Ultimately all future case management decisions are for the High Court and not for this Court on these appeals. However, the evidence advanced by the Claimants can be relied on in these appeals as demonstrating significant inequality of arms in access to information. Second, the Claimants cannot fund the litigation out of their own resources and have to rely upon their lawyers being prepared to act on CFA terms. The inequality that flows from this is best illustrated by the £7 million that the Claimants have had to expend on the SOIs. It is a very substantial sum for the Claimants; but it would be relatively (I emphasise the word “relatively”) trifling for the Defendants as part of a global organisation such as Shell.
[82] Stuart-Smith LJ emphasises the importance of disclosure, and [83]
while the Court should always be alert to disallow applications that are nothing more than “fishing expeditions”, in a case such as the present where the case that the Claimants wish to bring has been clearly articulated in their pleadings and associated documents, the Court should scrutinise with care any suggestion that the Defendants do not know the nature of the case they have to meet for the purposes of disclosure because it has not yet been pleaded with sufficient particularity. In principle, at least, the Court’s approach to the Claimants’ assertion that they need further disclosure should be informed more by the explanations they have given about why they need the disclosure before pleading a case with full particularity than by the present state of their pleadings. This is not to cast doubt for a moment upon the equally important principle that, before this litigation or any part of it can be brought to trial, the Claimants will be required to plead their case with sufficient particularity so that the Defendants know what case they have to meet and have a fair opportunity to meet it. That stage has evidently not yet been reached.
and [84]
this is a paradigm example of a case which can only be progressed by reference to lead cases and that the co-operative selection of lead cases by the parties (with the intervention of the Court if required) is an essential step that is required to break the circularity of the present impasse. It is not necessary to refer expressly to the multiple examples of complex litigation with wide-ranging factual and legal issues in many disparate fields that have been successfully case-managed using lead cases as the vehicles for determining important issues. I echo and endorse what was said by the Court in Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 951, [2022] 1 WLR 4691 at [139]:
“The courts have developed a wide range of case management tools in group litigation including, importantly, the selection of lead cases, the trial of preliminary issues and the adoption of a staged approach, either in parallel with other progress in the litigation or as a stand-alone procedure. These operate in what is now a digitalised environment which includes sophisticated e-disclosure, data sampling and algorithm mechanisms.”
Finally, Lord Justice Bean [102] emphasises the time issue:
I particularly wish to endorse the observations of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith that, in a case such as this where there is both a substantial inequality of arms and asymmetry of information between the parties, all case management decisions should be informed by the overriding objective, in particular by the court’s obligation to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in the proceedings. I also agree that, because of the time taken up by the Defendants’ jurisdictional challenge and the distraction of the global claims issue, there is a compelling need for the litigation to be progressed promptly from now on.
A very important case which emphasises again how, when hopefully one can conclude in a few years time that English courts have been trailblazers in holding business to account for human rights, and environmental abuse, procedural judgments like these will have proven to be pivotal, as will the skill of the lawyers not losing sight of the ‘boring bits’ of such claims (civil procedure rules, claim financing, etc)
Geert.
https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1865056147461284280
