Okpabi and others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and another

Okpabi and others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and another

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in law by conducting a mini-trial and evaluating the weight of contested evidence at the interlocutory stage, rather than focusing on whether the pleaded case disclosed a real issue to be tried. The appellants' case, as pleaded and supported by internal control documents and witness evidence, raised triable issues regarding RDS's control and assumption of responsibility over SPDC's operations. Therefore, there was a real issue to be tried and the appeal was allowed.

Parties
Appellants: Okpabi and others; First Respondent: Royal Dutch Shell Plc; Second Respondent: The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (SPDC)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Jurisdictional Appeal (civil) / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Parent Company Liability, Duty of Care, Jurisdiction Over Foreign Subsidiaries, Summary Judgment Test, Procedural Law
Tort Law Corporate Law Jurisdiction Parent Company Liability Duty of Care Jurisdiction Over Foreign Subsidiaries Summary Judgment Test Procedural Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Okpabi and others

Appellants

Royal Dutch Shell Plc

First Respondent

The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (SPDC)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Jurisdictional Appeal (civil) / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have an arguable case that a UK domiciled parent company owed them a common law duty of care for acts of a foreign subsidiary
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in its approach to parent company liability and the summary judgment test
  3. 3 Whether there is a real issue to be tried against the parent company

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in law by conducting a mini-trial and evaluating the weight of contested evidence at the interlocutory stage, rather than focusing on whether the pleaded case disclosed a real issue to be tried. The appellants' case, as pleaded and supported by internal control documents and witness evidence, raised triable issues regarding RDS's control and assumption of responsibility over SPDC's operations. Therefore, there was a real issue to be tried and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted for further proceedings to resolve outstanding jurisdictional challenges
  • Parties to agree the appropriate terms of the order