Shell’s 2018 jurisdiction victory was reversed: the Okpabi procedural record
The UK Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s 2018 jurisdiction ruling in Okpabi on 12 February 2021, allowing the Nigerian claimants’ appeal because there was a real issue to try about a parent-company duty.
- Development
- 14 February 2018
- Published
- 29 October 2026
- Sources checked
- 29 October 2026
This newly written historical account concerns the dated record above. It is not a recovered article or document from the former publisher. Later developments are identified separately.
The 2021 reversal changes how the 2018 ruling must be read
On 12 February 2021, the UK Supreme Court allowed the Nigerian claimants’ appeal and reversed the Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell. The Supreme Court found a real issue to try concerning whether the parent company owed a duty of care. It rejected a mini-trial at the jurisdiction stage. The ruling did not finally determine negligence or damages. The Supreme Court judgment is the later procedural outcome and should be read alongside the earlier decision.
The litigation concerned claims by people from the Ogale and Bille communities in Nigeria, who alleged damage from oil spills. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed whether the English courts could hear the claims against the parent company in light of an arguable duty. It did not decide whether Shell was liable for the alleged spills.
What the Court of Appeal decided in 2018
On 14 February 2018, the Court of Appeal had, by a majority, rejected the claimants’ appeal on the jurisdiction and arguable-duty issue. Sales LJ dissented. The court’s decision was not a trial judgment on whether Royal Dutch Shell was negligent or owed compensation. The old headline describing Shell as “not liable” therefore overstated what had been decided. The 2018 Court of Appeal ruling was the procedural decision later reversed by the Supreme Court.
The jurisdiction stage required the court to assess whether the claim against the parent company had a sufficient basis to proceed. The dispute included allegations about the parent’s control of operations and assumption of responsibility. Those were issues relevant to whether a duty was arguable, not findings that established liability after a full evidentiary trial.
Parent-company duty and the limits of the ruling
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had approached the jurisdiction question too restrictively and that the case raised a real issue to try about a parent-company duty. It emphasized that the jurisdiction hearing should not become a mini-trial that resolves disputed factual questions before the substantive case can proceed.
Our analysis: The reversal mattered because it reopened a path for the Ogale and Bille claims to be heard against the parent company. It did not establish that a parent is automatically liable for a subsidiary’s conduct, or that Shell caused the alleged pollution. The procedural record should be kept separate from the ultimate merits: the 2018 Court of Appeal ruling rejected an arguable-duty appeal, the Supreme Court reversed that result in 2021, and neither judgment finally determined oil-spill negligence or damages.