Read on Twitter
UK Supreme Court issuing decision on jurisdiction in Okpabi v. Shell right now.
Core issues: necessary or proper party gateway, real issue to be tried.
Court of Appeals decision (rejection of jurisdiction) is overturned, appeal is upheld!
Wow.
Wow.
Court of Appeal erred in requiring a way too high level of evidence in the jurisdiction stage, effectively amounting to a 'mini-trial'.
Shell had not been required to disclose relevant material, CoA erred in ruling that disclosure didn't serve sufficient purpose.
Group wide policies and guidelines *can* lead to duty of care, in contrast to what CoA ruled.
Parent company liability is not a new category of claim, ordinary negligence.
Second issue: there *are* real issues to be tried against parent company (RDS). Also in light of potential witnesses and documents to be disclosed. Can be argued on the merits by claimants.
Unanimous decision by the UK Supreme Court. Resounding victory for the claimants.
Short view: this really, really improves prospects for future litigation, especially when read together with Lungowe. Significantly lowers evidentiary bar, gives access to disclosure.
Have to read the Court's full decision, but it sounds like the Supreme Court followed similar reasoning to Sales LJ's dissent at the Court of Appeal.
Claimants will only have to show that parent company was in a position to exercise sufficient control at jurisdiction stage, for a 'triable issue' to exist. Whether control was then actually exercised can be determined at merits stage, after discovery.
To me, that sounds like the most sensible outcome, both for preventing 'mini trials', and for not raising the bar for claimants so high as to be insurmountable (not just in BHR cases, but generally).
That's two major decisions furthering prospects for corporate accountability in two weeks.
