Image: Windfallengprojectsltd / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
In Alame v Shell, Mrs Justice Lambert ruled on 10 September 2026 that the Bille and Ogale claimants may argue liability for all pollution in the region and that allegations of misleading evidence will be heard before the May 2027 trial.
The High Court in London has ruled in favour of the Bille and Ogale communities on two preliminary issues in their oil pollution claims against Shell. In Alame and Others v Shell Plc and Others [2026] EWHC 2332 (KB), handed down on 10 September 2026, Mrs Justice Lambert held that the claimants may argue that Shell is responsible for all oil pollution in the Bille region, and refused Shell’s request to postpone allegations that it relied on misleading evidence. The decision was summarised by Fountain Court Chambers and reported by the Solicitors Journal on 11 September 2026.
Pollution beyond identified spills
The proceedings concern spills from Shell infrastructure in the Niger Delta, with claims filed between 2015 and 2017. Shell had contested whether the claimants could go beyond the 106 identified spills. According to Fountain Court’s summary, the judge held that the claimants may argue Shell is liable for all oil pollution in the region, including pollution that cannot be attributed to a particular identified spill, and may rely on inferences about unidentified spills where their case is otherwise established.
Allegations of misleading evidence
The claimants allege that Shell and its former Nigerian subsidiary knowingly relied on false or misleading factual assertions during the jurisdiction proceedings, which ran until the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell, and that documents and data were destroyed. They seek aggravated damages. Shell wanted these issues deferred until after the liability trial. The judge refused, finding the allegations relevant to the credibility of some Shell witnesses and that postponement would cause unwarranted delay. Shell has said it will robustly defend the aggravated damages claim and maintains that most pollution in the Niger Delta results from oil theft, sabotage and illegal refining.
The liability trial is listed for May 2027. The claimants are represented by Leigh Day. Matthew Renshaw, a partner at the firm, told the Solicitors Journal: “Shell’s attempts to frustrate the progress of these claims has now reached a dead end and the case will now proceed to trial.”
Why it matters
The ruling on unattributed pollution matters well beyond this case. Where a claimant can establish a pattern of operational failure, it may not need to tie each item of damage to a specific, documented spill, which changes the evidential burden in multi-source contamination claims. For operators, including those who have acquired onshore Niger Delta assets from international companies, the decision is a reminder that English proceedings against a former parent can continue after divestment, and that historic records and witness evidence given in earlier procedural stages can themselves become the subject of the trial. Document retention and litigation hold practices in Nigerian operating subsidiaries deserve attention in any sale or restructuring.
Leave a Reply