Shell Niger Delta Oil Contamination Case: Balancing Causation and Amendment of Pleadings

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2961 (KB)
Judgment on


The case of Alame & Ors v Shell PLC & Anor contemplates a substantial and complex group litigation arising from allegations of oil contamination in the Niger Delta, involving numerous claimants against Shell. At its core, the litigation explores the nexus between oil spill events, attributed responsibility, and resultant environmental damage.

Key Facts

The Niger Delta has experienced oil pollution allegedly caused by Shell’s operated infrastructure. Claimants, consisting of individuals and communities from Bille and Ogale, seek compensation for losses allegedly due to Shell’s negligent operations and failure to mitigate damage. The case struggles with the identification of specific causative events linking Shell’s actions to environmental harm.

Shell has contested these claims, arguing that much of the pollution arises from third parties through oil theft and illegal refining. The litigation has wrestled with procedural complexities, resulting in a debate over whether the claims constitute a “global case” or are event-based.

Pleading Adequacy

A central issue concerned the sufficiency of pleadings, specifically whether the presentation of causation was adequately detailed. The concept of “material contribution” was put forward by the claimants, arguing that under Nigerian law, a cause can be established if an event by Shell materially contributed to the damage – a principle recognized in prior environmental and insurance cases in the UK.

Amendment of Pleadings

The principles surrounding the amendment of pleadings after limitation periods are governed by CPR Part 17. The court must consider whether proposed amendments raise new claims, and whether these claims are based on facts substantially similar to the original pleadings. If a new claim is linked to existing facts, courts can exercise their discretion to allow the amendment, ensuring procedural justice and reflecting considerations of the overriding objective.

Global vs. Events-Based Claim

The distinction between a global claim and an events-based claim is pivotal. For an events-based claim, claimants must specify the spill events causing the loss, unlike in global claims, where claimants allege blanket responsibility for widespread harm. The court applied principles from construction litigation to stress the need for precise event identification before trial.

Striking Out New Claims

The criteria for striking out new claims revolve around whether they constitute a breach of procedural rules (in this case, GLO) or if they are an abuse of process, such as attempts to circumvent limitation defenses. Principles from prior cases clearly disapprove of utilising new procedural schemes exclusively to sidestep time limits.


The court permitted most amendments, including those invoking constitutional claims based on the African Charter and Nigerian Constitution, finding them to be arguably sustainable and arising from the same or substantially the same facts. One particular amendment regarding the cleanup responsibility from illegal refining was rejected for enlarging the remediation duty scope.

The judgment indicated that the claims (except those few adequately specified) effectively function as a global claim, potentially allowing for a global assessment of damages and liabilities unless further specificity is achieved. The “Master” particulars filed for additional Ogale claimants were deemed academic due to the allowance of the main amendments and would have otherwise been struck out for non-compliance with the GLO or as an abuse of process.


The case elegantly tackles challenges inherent in large-scale environmental litigation, balancing the need for detailed pleadings with the practical difficulties of linking specific harmful events to claimants’ losses. The judgment establishes a precedent for scrutinizing the adequacy of causation details while allowing for flexibility through amendments, provided they do not deviate fundamentally from pleaded facts. Furthermore, it emphasizes a firm stance against procedural tactics that might undermine the principles of timely justice. The decision presents UK legal practitioners with a framework for managing complex group litigations and insight into the interfacing of Nigerian and UK legal principles in transnational disputes.

Related Summaries