Key Facts
- •Oil spill occurred in the Bonga oilfield off the coast of Nigeria on 20 December 2011.
- •Two claims (Jalla 1 and Jalla 2) were filed against Shell entities for damages and compensation.
- •A significant issue arose regarding the authority of RBL Law Limited to represent numerous claimants in Jalla 2.
- •The claims were ultimately statute-barred due to limitation issues.
- •The court addressed the authority issue, defendants' application for costs against claimants, and an application for disclosure/costs against RBL.
Legal Principles
Costs are in the discretion of the court.
CPR 44.2(1), Senior Courts Act 1981, section 51
The general rule is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.
CPR 44.2(2)(a)
In deciding costs, the court considers the conduct of all parties and whether a party succeeded on part of its case.
CPR 44.2(4) and (5)
Proceedings issued without authority are defective but not devoid of legal effect unless struck out.
Adams v Ford [2012] EWCA Civ 544
Under Nigerian common law, a lawyer needs individual consent to bring proceedings on behalf of an individual.
Court's findings
A solicitor warrants authority when issuing proceedings.
Yonge v Toynbee [1910] 1 KB 215
It's an abuse of process for solicitors to issue proceedings without client authority.
Adams v Ford [2012] 1 WLR 3211
Costs orders against non-parties are exceptional, justified when the non-party substantially controls or benefits from the litigation.
Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd (Costs) [2004] UKPC 39
Mere funding and financial interest in litigation doesn't automatically expose a legal representative to a costs order.
Willers v Elena Joyce [2019] EWHC 2183 (Ch)
Court has inherent power to order disclosure to support a non-party costs application.
Abraham v Thompson [1997] 4 All E.R. 362; Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Crossseas Shipping Ltd [2003] EWHC 1381 (Comm)
Outcomes
Claimants' claims dismissed due to limitation.
Cumulative effect of judgments on limitation and continuing nuisance.
Defendants awarded 90% of costs of the authority issue against claimants.
Defendants largely successful on authority issue; claimants had limited success regarding community claims.
Claimants ordered to pay £577,454.58 on account of costs.
Based on 55% of 90% of the defendants' claimed costs (£1,166,574.90).
RBL to be added as a defendant for costs purposes.
Evidence suggests RBL acted without authority for most claimants, potentially breaching warranty of authority.
RBL ordered to provide disclosure on funding arrangements.
To assist in determining whether a non-party costs order against RBL is justified.