- No valid claim against parent company ensures success of jurisdiction challenge (HRH Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- Background to and issues in this case—jurisdictional challenges and related issues
- Jurisdiction challenges—case management issues
- Jurisdiction challenges—documentation for the application
- Jurisdiction challenges and preliminary issues
- How to approach the jurisdiction question
- Excluding certain expert and factual evidence
- The relevance of the claimants' solicitors (Leigh Day) and their repeat work in this type of claim
- The relevance of the Bodo and Vedanta litigation
- The issues on the applicable (or governing) law
- Jurisdiction—the 'necessary or proper party' gateway
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has determined that where there was no valid claim against the holding company, then it had no jurisdiction based on the ‘necessary or proper party’ gateway of CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(3) as against the Nigerian subsidiary. The judgment considers issues as to case managing jurisdiction challenges, determining the applicable law, the jurisdiction gateway, the nature of the claimants’ solicitors, Leigh Day, as well as distinguishing the finding of Coulson J in the Vedanta litigation.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial