This post is by Aliyah Akram of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The case involved 42,500 residents of the Niger Delta, from two different communities, who sought to bring a claim in the High Court for damages arising from environmental pollution caused by, they alleged, oil spills from the Defendants’ pipelines.
The claim was brought against two defendants. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (“SPDC”), the Shell company responsible for the oil operations and Royal Dutch Shell (“RDS”) its ultimate parent company. Continue reading His Royal Highness Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Lucky Alame v Royal Dutch Shell Plc  EWHC 89 (TCC); Jurisdiction and international environmental group actions
This blog is by Patrick Vincent of 12 King’s Bench Walk
This was a decision of Mrs Justice Andrews in a catastrophic personal injury claim.The point decided was whether to accede to one of the Defendants’ applications to set aside an order permitting service upon it out of the jurisdiction.
Superficially the point is a short one, but the detailed judgment deals with several important issues of law and procedure relevant to international claims, and particularly international person injury claims, including:-
- The duties on a party making a without notice application to serve out of the jurisdiction, or to extend time for service.
- The availability of the jurisdictional “gateways” set out in the Practice Direction 6BPD3.
- The proper characterisation of claims brought against foreign insurers.
Continue reading Gunn & others v Diaz & others  EWHC 157 (QB) – service out of the jurisdiction
This blog is by Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The claimant in this case was French company engaged in importing tobacco products to Guadeloupe and Martinique. The defendant was Panamanian company within the wider BAT corporate group.
The claimant had a five-year distribution agreement with the defendant. The agreement provided for English law and exclusive jurisdiction. This agreement came to an end without any further agreement to renew it.
The claimant commenced English proceedings in pursuit of what it claimed was a ‘margin pay-out’ of €6.5 million. It was claimed that it was entitled to this pay-out pursuant to the agreement as a result of the failure to renew. The defendant denied any entitlement to a pay-out and counterclaimed for numerous unpaid invoices and for €8.5 million of VAT recovered from the French VAT authorities. The Defendant argued that it was to be paid these VAT monies pursuant to an oral agreement.
The claimant denied these allegations and alleged that there was no enforceable agreement. The claimant argued that the agreement in respect of the VAT monies did not lie with itself but with the other group companies (the proposed third and fourth defendants). These companies had been subcontracted to carry out distribution in the relevant territories and had recovered the VAT monies themselves. Continue reading PHP v Tobacco Carib Sarl v BAT Caribbean SA  EWHC 3377 (Comm): Brussels Recast & third party claims