Duane Morris London

The English court decision in Alame & Ors v Shell PLC (formerly known as Royal Dutch Shell PLC) & Anor [2024] EWHC 510 (KB), is relevant to the way that the court will approach disclosure in large scale litigation, including class actions and litigation being pursued under a Group Litigation Order.

The case relates to claims for damages arising from pollution in the Niger delta. The claimants had sought wide ranging disclosure arguing that the defendants had all the information on the pollution, while the claimants had very little.

The judge disagreed. He held that the disclosure requests amounted to a classic fishing expedition and that the touchstone for disclosure is that it should be done against the as-pleaded issues in the case. Moreover, an “information imbalance is not a sufficient reason to order disclosure”.

The key paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

23. As the Defendants accept, that does not mean the case is to halt or that there is not substantial disclosure to be made. There is. But it does require me to consider carefully what is relevant and proportionate now, by reference to the case as it currently is, and not as the Claimants would like it to be, or even as it may be in future. An information imbalance is not a sufficient reason to order disclosure, where relevance has not first been established. The observations of Fraser J in ordering specific disclosure of two documents in the Cavallari case are not to be understood as establishing a free-standing right to disclosure where one side has more information than the other. Relevance to pleaded issues must be the touchstone. Two examples from this case serve to demonstrate the difficulty of taking the general approach advocated by Mr Hermer: first, under Nigerian law there is strict liability for pollution arising from equipment failure. For such events, maintenance records will be irrelevant. Next, if, at the PI trial, I come to the same view as Akenhead J did in the Bodo litigation as to the proper meaning and effect of section 11 of the OPA – that there is liability provided negligence is shown – how is disclosure relevant to negligence in respect of third-party interference to be given where the individual events have not been identified?

24. Some of the documents sought may be relevant and (proportionately) disclosable for other reasons, but not on the sole basis that they might have information which might assist the Claimants in identifying which event(s) have caused an individual’s loss. That would be a classic fishing expedition. I repeat that the Claimants have chosen to bring a case based on multiple polluting events of many differing kinds occurring in a wide area over an extended period of time; it is for them to provide the necessary clarity so as to permit disclosure which is properly tethered to the issues. The Defendants are not to be expected to throw open the doors to their archives or to permit a general trawl through their records. The tail must not be allowed to wag the dog.