High Court allows Shell trial claims

The High Court has granted permission for a trial concerning claims that witnesses for oil giant Shell sought to mislead the court about oil spills in Nigeria. This decision follows a series of hearings that occurred in July 2026. The case revolves around two Nigerian communities that allege Shell's oil pollution has severely affected their land, with the misleading evidence reportedly presented during jurisdiction proceedings from 2016 to 2021.

Shell had previously argued that the case should be dismissed from the English courts, positing that it should only be heard in Nigeria due to the testimony from their witnesses asserting that Shell Nigeria operates independently from Shell plc, which is based in London. However, the Supreme Court dismissed Shell's arguments unanimously in 2021, paving the way for a full trial that is now slated for May 2027.

The communities in question are seeking aggravated damages, claiming that Shell knowingly relied on false or misleading evidence to impede progress on their case. Shell's legal representatives advocated for a separate hearing on these witness allegations after the main trial, but the High Court countered that the matter should be addressed immediately, citing its relevance to the credibility of Shell's witnesses.

Furthermore, the claimants argue that Shell has forfeited legal professional privilege over communications connected to the witness evidence because of the company's alleged misconduct. A preliminary hearing is expected to determine if Shell's witnesses knowingly provided false information and whether privileged communications should be disclosed.

During the July 2026 hearings, Shell also contested various elements of the claimants' revised pleadings, which delineated the factual and legal justifications for holding Shell accountable for the oil pollution in the Bille region. The High Court has confirmed that the Bille community can assert Shell's liability for all oil pollution in the area, even if residents are unable to pinpoint every specific spill responsible for the environmental damage.

The judgement clarifies that these claims are neither "all or nothing" nor "global claims," which could significantly impact other environmental cases where tracking every pollution incident is challenging. The High Court has endorsed the claimants' strategy, which Shell has endeavoured to undermine.

International partner at Leigh Day, Matthew Renshaw, articulated that "Shell’s attempts to frustrate the progress of these claims has now reached a dead end and the case will now proceed to trial in full." He added that the High Court has acknowledged the vital importance of determining whether Shell's witnesses provided false or misleading information to the English Courts, which could have stymied the advancement of the claims. Renshaw concluded, "This judgment also sets an important precedent for other environmental cases involving multiple polluting events."