ClientEarth v Shell Plc & Ors.

ClientEarth v Shell Plc & Ors.

ClientEarth failed to establish a prima facie case that Shell directors breached statutory duties in their management of climate risk or compliance with the Dutch Order. The evidence did not show directors' actions fell outside the range of reasonable responses, lacked expert support, and the relief sought was too imprecise for enforcement. The court found no basis on which a person acting in accordance with s.172 Companies Act 2006 would seek to continue the claim.

Parties
Claimant: ClientEarth; Defendant: Shell Plc; Defendant: Sir Andrew Stewart Mackenzie; Defendant: Wael Sawan; Defendant: Euleen Yiu Kiang Goh; Defendant: Sinead Gorman; Defendant: Arie Dirk (Dick) Boer; Defendant: Neil Andrew Patrick Carson OBE; Defendant: Ann Frances Godbehere; Defendant: Catherine Jeanne Hughes; Defendant: Jane Holl Lute; Defendant: Martina Therese Sophie Hund-Mejean; Defendant: Abraham (Bram) Schot
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Claim (prima Facie Case Assessment)
Outcome
Application dismissed (no prima facie case for permission to continue derivative claim)
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Derivative Actions, Climate Risk Management, Corporate Governance, Shareholder Rights
Company Law Environmental Law Directors' Duties Derivative Actions Climate Risk Management Corporate Governance Shareholder Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ClientEarth

Claimant

Shell Plc

Defendant

Sir Andrew Stewart Mackenzie

Defendant

Wael Sawan

Defendant

Euleen Yiu Kiang Goh

Defendant

Sinead Gorman

Defendant

Arie Dirk (Dick) Boer

Defendant

Neil Andrew Patrick Carson OBE

Defendant

Ann Frances Godbehere

Defendant

Catherine Jeanne Hughes

Defendant

Jane Holl Lute

Defendant

Martina Therese Sophie Hund-Mejean

Defendant

Abraham (Bram) Schot

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Claim (prima Facie Case Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ClientEarth established a prima facie case for permission to continue a derivative claim against Shell directors for alleged breaches of duty relating to climate risk management and compliance with the Dutch Order

Ratio Decidendi

ClientEarth failed to establish a prima facie case that Shell directors breached statutory duties in their management of climate risk or compliance with the Dutch Order. The evidence did not show directors' actions fell outside the range of reasonable responses, lacked expert support, and the relief sought was too imprecise for enforcement. The court found no basis on which a person acting in accordance with s.172 Companies Act 2006 would seek to continue the claim.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (no prima facie case for permission to continue derivative claim)

Orders

  • ClientEarth's application for permission to continue the derivative claim is dismissed under s.261(2)(a) Companies Act 2006.
  • ClientEarth may request an oral hearing within 7 days under CPR 19.15(10).