Greenpeace's lengthy court documents were deemed too long and complicated. A judge made Greenpeace shorten them. Even though Shell (the other side) won, the judge reduced how much Greenpeace had to pay in legal fees, since the hearing helped make the case simpler.
Key Facts
- •Shell UK Ltd and Fluor Ltd (Claimants) brought a claim against Greenpeace UK Ltd and others (Defendants).
- •The Defendants' pleadings were deemed non-compliant and excessively long by Mr. Justice Andrew Baker and subsequently by Mrs. Justice Cockerill.
- •A hearing was held to address the pleading's length and compliance.
- •The Defendants were largely unwilling to shorten their pleadings without the court's intervention.
- •While the Claimants effectively won, the hearing had a case management element.
Legal Principles
Outcomes
Costs awarded to the Claimants.
The Defendants' pleadings were non-compliant, and the hearing, though with a case management aspect, was necessary due to the Defendants' resistance to shortening their pleadings. A partial reduction in costs reflects the case management aspects and some specific points raised by the Defendants' counsel.