The High Court has ruled that claimants in Alame and Others v Shell Plc and Others [2026] EWHC 2332 (KB) may argue at trial that Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd are liable for all oil pollution in the Bille region of the Niger Delta during the relevant period.
In a judgment handed down on 10 September 2026, Mrs Justice Lambert also granted permission for the claimants to pursue aggravated damages in relation to allegations that Shell witnesses gave false and misleading evidence during Shell’s earlier jurisdiction challenge.
The proceedings concern oil spills and pollution from Shell pipelines and infrastructure in the Niger Delta between 2011 and 2013, and the widespread environmental damage allegedly caused by those spills. Claims were brought between 2015 and 2017 on behalf of communities in the Bille and Ogale areas.
The litigation has previously involved significant procedural challenges, including Shell’s unsuccessful jurisdiction challenge, which was resolved by the Supreme Court in Okpabi and Others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another [2021] UKSC 3.
In 2024, the Court of Appeal rejected Shell’s argument that the claims should be treated as “global claims” – namely, claims which would fail if the claimants could not establish Shell’s responsibility for all spills and causes of oil pollution in the region.
At hearings in July 2026, Shell sought to prevent the claimants from advancing two aspects of their case at the forthcoming trial.
First, Shell argued that the claimants should be limited to claims relating to the 106 identified spills and damage that could be traced to those spills. The High Court rejected that argument. Lambert J held that the claimants are entitled to argue at trial that Shell is responsible for all oil pollution in the region, including pollution which cannot be attributed to a particular identified spill. She stated that the claimants may rely on inferences that unidentified spills caused such pollution where their case is otherwise established.
The Court emphasised that the claims are not “all or nothing” or “global claims”, and found that the claimants had set out their case with sufficient clarity and particularity. The decision may have wider implications for environmental claims where it is difficult to identify every individual polluting event responsible for environmental damage.
Second, Shell argued that allegations concerning its witnesses allegedly giving false or misleading evidence, and the alleged destruction of evidence, should be determined at a later hearing. The Court rejected that submission, finding that the issues could be relevant to the credibility of witnesses giving evidence at the 2027 liability trial and that postponing them would cause further delay.
The trial is due to start in May 2027.
Anneliese Day KC was instructed by Leigh Day, together with Phillippa Kaufmann KC and Catherine Arnold of Matrix Chambers, Joshua Jackson of Doughty Street Chambers and Abe Chauhan of Blackstone Chambers. Anneliese was also part of the wider counsel team involved in preparing the claimants’ pleadings.
The judgment is available here.
