Hof Den Haag, 18-12-2015, nr. 200.126.843-01 200.126.848-01

of Goi, Rivers State, Federal Republic of Nigeria,

2. the association with legal personality VERENIGING MILIEUDEFENSIE,

established in Amsterdam,

appellants, also respondents in the cross-appeal,

hereinafter referred to as: Eric Dooh (or Dooh) and MD, and jointly: MD et al. (plural),

attorney-at-law: mr. Ch. Samkalden of Amsterdam,

versus (case c)

established in London, United Kingdom, with its registered office in The Hague,

2. the legal person incorporated under foreign law SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LTD.,

established in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Federal Republic of Nigeria,

respondents, also appellants in the cross-appeal,

hereinafter referred to as: RDS and the SPDC, and jointly as: Shell (singular),

attorney-at-law: mr. J. de Bie Leuveling Tjeenk of Amsterdam,

and versus (case d)

established in The Hague,

2. the legal person incorporated under foreign law THE “SHELL” TRANSPORT AND TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,

established in London, United Kingdom,

respondents, also appellants in the cross-appeal,

hereinafter referred to as: Shell NV and Shell T&T and jointly as: Shell (singular),

attorney-at-law: mr. J. de Bie Leuveling Tjeenk of Amsterdam.

Contents

The contents of this ruling has been divided as follows:

Course of the proceedings

General

The course of the proceedings in cases a and b

The further assessment

1. The facts (legal ground 1.1 and 1.2)

2. The claims of MD et al. and the judgments of the district court (legal ground 2.1-2.2)

3. The appeal; preliminary considerations

Applicable law (legal ground 3.1-3.2)

Renewed assessment of the claims (legal ground 3.3-3.10)

Nigerian law; general (legal ground 3.12-3.22)

Exclusivity of the OPA (legal ground 3.23-3.26)

Liability of a parent company under Nigerian law (legal ground 3.27-3.31)

The extent of the contamination (legal ground 3.32)

4. Preliminary defences of Shell

Introduction (legal ground 4.1)

Right of action of Barizaa Dooh (the father) (legal ground 4.2-4.8)

Right of action of Eric Dooh (the son) (legal ground 4.9-4.14)

Right of action of MD et al. under the OPA (legal ground 4.15-4.18)

5. The claims in respect of ‘Origin’ (of the leak)

Claims I and III.a-a against the SPDC (the subsidiary) (legal ground 5.1)

Sabotage defence: burden of proof and threshold of proof (legal ground 5.2-5.12)

Evaluation of the evidence (legal ground 5.13-5.26)

Conclusion on claims I and III.a-a against the SPDC in respect of ‘Origin’ (legal ground 5.27-5.29)

Claims I and III.a-a against the parent companies in respect of Origin (legal ground 5.30-5.31)

Claim VI: keeping the pipes in a good state of repair (legal ground 5.32-5.33)

6. The claims against the SPDC in respect of ‘Response’

Background and bases (legal ground 6.1-6.5)

Access problems (legal ground 6.6-6.7)

Argument I: oil supply pipe shut off too late (legal ground 6.8-6.11)

Argument II: LDS (legal ground 6.12)

Argument III: the fire (legal ground 6.13)

Argument IV: the containment (legal ground 6.14)

Conclusion on claims I and III.a-a against the SPDC in respect of Response (legal ground 6.15-6.18)

Claim VII: order in respect of Response (legal ground 6.19-6.21)

7. The claims in respect of Decontamination

Preliminary considerations (legal ground 7.1-7.4)

The EGASPIN recommendations (legal ground 7.5-7.8)

The further assessments of the Decontamination claims (legal ground 7.9)

The temporal aspects of the decontamination (legal ground 7.10-7.13)

Soil decontamination (legal ground 7.14-7.27)

Water decontamination (legal ground 7.28-7.29)

Conclusion on the negligence-based Decontamination claims (legal ground 7.30-7.31)

The Rylands v Fletcher rule (legal ground 7.32)

8. Claims II and III.b: the fundamental right to a clean environment (legal ground 8.1-8.6)

9. Claims III.a-b and IX (legal ground 9.1-9.2)

10. Concluding considerations (legal ground 10.1-10.5)

Decision

Course of the proceedings

General

In this ruling, the Court of Appeal assesses cases c and d, which form part of six cases brought against Shell by MD and the Nigerian claimants/farmers. Cases a and b concern a leak which occurred at the Nigerian village of Oruma in 2005. The current cases c and d concern a leak which occurred at the Nigerian village of Goi in 2004. Cases e and f concern a leak which occurred at the Nigerian village of Ikot Ada Udo in 2006 and 2007.

The course of the proceedings in cases c and d

Please refer to the most recent interlocutory judgment of 31 July 2018 and the three preceding interlocutory judgments of 27 March 2018, 11 October 2016 and 18 December 2015 for a detailed overview of the course of the proceedings up to that date. A summary of the entire course of proceedings is presented below.

MD et al. have brought their appeal against the 30 January 2013 judgment of The Hague District Court (hereinafter: the district court) in time. This judgment is based on the following documents, inter alia:

- the initiating summons of MD et al. (IS);

- Shell’s statement of defence (SoD);

- the reply of MD et al. (R);

- Shell’s rejoinder (Rej);

- the written summaries of the oral arguments of MD et al. (WS-MD) and of Shell (WS-S) of 11 October 2012.

On appeal, the following court documents were submitted/the following procedural acts took place:

- the motion for the production of exhibits of MD et al. (M-Exh);

- Shell’s defence on appeal in the procedural issue pursuant to Section 843a Code of Civil Procedure including a motion for the court to decline jurisdiction in the procedural issue (DoA-Exh);

- the defence on appeal regarding the motion for the court to decline jurisdiction in the procedural issue pursuant to Section 843a Code of Civil Procedure of MD et al. (DoA-J/Exh);

- the record of appearance of the parties of 30 June 2014 (RA-2014), showing that the procedural agreement was made to split up the appeal proceedings into two phases, in which (phase 1) firstly an opinion would be given on the competence of the Dutch court, concurrently with a decision on the claim/claims in the procedural issue pursuant to Section 843a Code of Civil Procedure, followed by (phase 2) a decision on the merits;

- Shell’s statement of appeal in the cross-appeal stage 1 (SoA-cross/1);

- the statement of appeal on the dismissal of the Section 843a Code of Civil Procedure claim in phase 1 of MD et al. (SoA/1);

- Shell’s defence on appeal stage 1 (DoA/1);

- the defence on appeal against Shell’s statement of appeal (phase 1) of MD et al. (DoA-cross/1);

- the written summary of the oral arguments of MD et al. (WS/1-MD) and of Shell (WS/1-S);

- the interlocutory ruling of this Court of Appeal of 18 December 2015 (the 2015 ruling), in which it was decided (i) that the Dutch court had international jurisdiction to take cognizance of all claims and (ii) that MD had locus standi in the class action and in which (iii) the 843a Code of Civil Procedure claims of MD et al. were partially allowed;

- the interlocutory ruling of 27 March 2018 (the 2018/1 ruling) in which an expert examination into the cause of the leaks in Oruma and Goi was ordered – following a personal appearance of the parties and a documents exchange;

- the interlocutory ruling of 31 July 2018 (the 2018/2 ruling), in which a further application of MD in the 843a Code of Civil Procedure procedural issue was dismissed;

- the expert opinion of 17 December 2018 (the expert opinion);

- the order of this Court of Appeal of 25 January 2019, in which the costs of the experts were estimated at € 44,840.18 for D. Koster and W. Sloterdijk and at £ 17,000.00 for T. Sowerby;

- the 260-page statement of appeal stage 2 of MD et al. (SoA/2);

- Shell’s 375-page defence on appeal/statement of appeal in the cross-appeal stage 2 (DoA/SoA-cross/2);

- the defence on appeal in the cross-appeal stage 2 of MD et al. (DoA-cross/2);

- the document commenting on exhibits in the principal appeal stage of MD et al. (DC-MD/2) in which they comment on Exhibits 56-57 to the DoA/SoA-cross/2;

- the document containing Exhibits Q.72-Q.80 of MD et al.;

- Shell’s additional Exhibits 77 and 78;

- Exhibits Q.81 and Q.82 of MD et al.;

- Shell’s Exhibits 79 and 80;

- Exhibits Q.83 and Q.84 of MD et al.

On 8 and 9 October 2020, the attorneys-at-law of the parties pleaded the cases (the 2020 hearing). They used written summaries of the oral arguments (WS/2-MD and WS/2-S), which they submitted. A record of the hearing was drawn up (RH-2020). The objections raised at the hearing against the submission of exhibits and against the arguments brought forward at the hearing were withdrawn.

The parties also submitted a folder (digital and in hard copy) containing the correspondence conducted, numbered 1 - 113. That folder also contains the report of findings of 18 July 2017 of mr. B.E. ter Haar concerning the confidential documents filed by Shell. Shell also submitted those documents on a USB flash drive.

The exhibits of MD et al. are identified with a letter and a number (for instance, M.1 and Q.83), Shell’s exhibits with only a number (for instance, 66).

Where reference is made hereinafter to the court documents, this is taken to mean the court documents in case c, unless expressly stated otherwise.

The further assessment

The Court considers the following facts as established:

a. Nigeria has been burdened for a long time by serious problems for people and nature due to the oil extraction activities of oil companies, including the Shell group. The Shell group, a multinational which is headquartered in The Hague, has been carrying out oil extraction activities in Nigeria since 1958. Nigeria experiences many oil leaks from oil pipelines and oil installations each year. Oil leaks may arise due to defective and/or obsolete material of the oil companies or due to sabotage, which could effectively involve insufficient security measures. Sabotage is often committed to steal oil or to receive compensation from oil companies for the oil contamination in the form of money or paid orders for decontamination work to be carried out after the leak.

b. Up until 20 July 2005, Shell NV in The Hague and Shell T&T in London jointly headed the Shell group as parent companies. Via subsidiaries they held shares in the SPDC, the Nigerian legal person in the Shell group involved in the oil extraction activities in Nigeria. RDS – established in London but headquartered in The Hague – has been at the head of the group since the restructuring of the Shell group of 20 July 2005. Since then, RDS has held the shares in the SPDC via subsidiaries.

c. Ogoniland is an area of about 1,000 square kilometre situated in Rivers State in the Niger Delta. The village of Goi is located in this area. The SPDC ceased operations in 1993 because it deemed the situation in that area too unsafe for its employees. After this date, underground main oil pipelines of the SPDC ran through Ogoniland, which are still used to this day, for the transportation of crude oil from oil fields situated outside Ogoniland to one of the port terminals operated by the SPDC. Main and supply pipelines are connected to each other in a manifold.

d. B.M.T. Dooh (hereinafter: Barizaa Dooh) – who died on 14 January 2012 and was the father of Eric Dooh – used to be a Nigerian farmer and fisherman who lived near Goi. In 2004, Barizaa Dooh made a living by developing farmland and operating fish ponds near Goi. MD is a Dutch organization whose objective is to protect the environment worldwide and which assists the heirs of Barizaa Dooh in these proceedings.

e. On 10 October 2004, a leak (hereinafter also: the leak) occurred in one of the aforementioned underground pipelines in the territory of the Mogho community near Goi. The leak occurred in a 24 inch pipeline, more specifically in the part that had been built in 1964 and which runs from the manifold at Bomu to the Bonny terminal, this pipeline’s end station (hereinafter also simply: the Goi pipeline). The oil gushed from a 46 centimetre long small opening at the top of the pipeline, between the 10 and 2 o’ clock position. The top of the pipeline was at a depth of about 1 to 1.5 metres. A photograph of the opening is provided below:

[De ontbrekende afbeelding wordt zo spoedig mogelijk toegevoegd.]

f. The leaked oil spilled beyond the strip of land where the SPDC has right of way. Right of way is the exclusive right to use land by having pipelines in the ground and whereby the owner of the land is no longer allowed to use the land.

g. On 12 and 13 October 2004, the so-called Joint Investigation Team (JIT) visited the site of the leak. The team was composed of representatives from the ministries involved, of the SPDC as the operator of the Goi pipeline, and of the Mogho community. On 12 October 2004, the leak was closed provisionally with wood chips to stop the leak from flowing from the leak. On 13 October 2004, the leak was definitively repaired by fitting a round clamp, a so-called 24” x 14” PLIDCO split sleeve clamp, around the pipeline at the location of the leak.

h. The JIT drew up a report, which was not signed by the representatives of the Mogho community, but which was signed by the representatives from the Nigerian ministries and of the SPDC. Part A of the report states the following: ‘Estimated quantity of oil spilled: 150 bbls’ (150 barrels of 159 litres each). Part B of the report includes the following, inter alia.

In getting to the leak point the following was observed.

There was clear evidence of previous excavation as shown by an exposed pipeline and trench already dug by unknown persons.

There was loose (soft) soil backfill and fresh grasses all around the leak point.

On proper excavation to expose point, it was discovered that a transverse saw cut of 18”(45.72 cm) was made in the pipeline between 10-2 o‘clock position by unknown persons.

The coating on the pipeline was damaged at the point of the leak.

Ultrasonic wall thickness test shows no evidence of corrosion at the point of leak as there was no significant wall loss.

The leak was clamped.

UT along saw cut: a 9.2.b 9.1.c 9.4.d 9.5.e 9.5 f 9.2 g. 9.3 h 9.(…) j 9.3 k 9.2 l 9.1 m 9.3 n 9.2 o 9.5 p 9.3 q 9.4

i. In a letter dated 8 December 2004, Rivers State notified the SPDC that the SPDC was not allowed to carry out any of the scheduled decontamination activities in connection with oil leaks in Ogoniland. Over two years later, in January/February 2007, decontamination commenced. Remediation activities were carried out according to the Remediation by Enhanced Natural Attenuation (RENA) method through land and farming process, entailing that contaminated soil is mixed with clean material, following which nature restores itself over time. This involved excavating the contaminated soil to a depth of 30 centimetres. The decontamination process was finalized in May 2007. In June 2007, decontamination of the part of the affected area where fish ponds are located commenced. This decontamination was carried out according to the same method as the earlier decontamination processes, with the proviso that the fish ponds had to be drained first before excavating the contaminated soil (see for more information also 45-50 DoA).

j. On 4 April 2008, the Joint Federal and States Environmental Regulatory Agencies drew up Clean-Up and Remediation Certification Formats (hereinafter: the Clean-Up certificates), which were signed by two Nigerian government institutions, for the decontamination of the contaminated soil according to the RENA method and about the decontamination of the contaminated fish ponds.

The following, inter alia, is stated in the certificate for the soil:

D. Area (…) of Impact: 311.000M2

(…)

Completion date: Aug 2007

STATUS: Site Certified

The following, inter alia, is stated in the certificate for the fish ponds:

D. Area (…) of Impact: 23.500M2

(…)

Completion date: Aug 2007

STATUS: Site Certified

2. The claims of MD et al. and the judgments of the district court

MD et al. assert that Shell is liable for the origin of the leak, failed to respond adequately to the leak, and failed to clean up properly after the leak. MD et al. claim, following an amendment of claim III on appeal, in a somewhat abridged form (whereby ‘Shell’ is understood to mean the four summoned Shell legal persons), in a decision that is provisionally enforceable:

I to rule that Shell acted unlawfully towards Barizaa Dooh based on the assertions in the court documents of MD et al., and that Shell is jointly and severally liable towards Barizaa Dooh for the damage he incurred and will incur as a result of Shell’s unlawful conduct, which damage is to be assessed later during separate follow-up proceedings and settled according to the law, plus statutory interest from the date of the summonses until the date on which payment is made in full;

II to rule that Shell is liable for the violation of the physical integrity of Barizaa Dooh caused by living in a contaminated living environment;

III.a to rule that Shell acted unlawfully by allowing the contested leak to occur, and/or failing to respond properly to the contested leak, and/or failing to properly decontaminate the soil/farmland and fish ponds which were contaminated as a result of the contested leak, for the benefit of the local population and in order to counter any and/or further environmental and health damage, current and future, in the persons living in the vicinity of the contested leak in Goi, whose interests – which are similar to those of the individual claimants – MD also seeks to protect in these proceedings, in accordance with its objectives as set out in its articles of association; and/or

III.b to rule that Shell infringed on the right to a clean living environment, as enshrined in Articles 20, 33 and 34 of the Nigerian Constitution and in Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, by allowing the contested leak to occur, and/or failing to respond properly to the contested leak, and/or failing to properly decontaminate the soil/farmland and fish ponds which were contaminated as a result of the contested leak, for the benefit of the local population and in order to counter any and/or further environmental and health damage, current and future, in the persons living in the vicinity of the contested leak in Goi, whose interests – which are similar to those of the individual claimants – MD also seeks to protect in these proceedings, in accordance with its objectives as set out in its articles of association;

IV to instruct Shell to commence decontaminating the soil around the oil leak/oil leaks within two weeks from the service of the ruling so that it will meet the international and local environmental standards in force, and to complete the decontamination process within one month from the start;

V to instruct Shell to commence purifying the water sources in and around Goi within two weeks from the service of the ruling, and to complete the purification process within one month from the start;

VI to order Shell, after their replacement, to keep the oil pipelines at Goi in a good state of repair;

VII to order Shell to implement in Nigeria an adequate response plan to tackle oil spills and to ensure that all conditions are met for a timely and adequate response in case a new oil leak occurs at Goi; for MD et al. this includes at least making available sufficient materials and means – as proof of which Shell will send MD et al. overviews – in order to limit any damage of a potential oil leak as much as possible;

VIII to order Shell to pay to MD et al. a penalty of € 100,000 (or another amount as determined in the proper administration of justice in the ruling) every time Shell, separately and jointly, acts in violation of the orders referred to under IV, V, VI and/or VII (as the Court understands it);

IX to hold Shell jointly and severally liable for compensation of the extrajudicial costs;

X to order Shell to pay the costs of these proceedings in both instances, including the costs of the experts, or at least to compensate the costs of the parties.

The district court dismissed all claims of MD et al. To that end, the district court considered, inter alia, that MD et al. failed to contest with sufficient substantiation Shell’s defence that the leak was caused by sabotage (legal grounds 4.21 and 4.25 of the judgment), that in October 2004 the SPDC effectively stopped and remedied the leak as quickly as reasonably possible within three days, so that it cannot be stated that Shell’s response was factually inadequate (legal ground 4.51 of the judgment) and that it was not established that insufficient decontamination had been carried out (legal ground 4.58 of the judgment).

Applicable law

As is stated under 1.3 of the 2015 ruling, the claims of MD et al. must be assessed substantively according to Nigerian law, and Dutch law/procedural law – as laid down, inter alia, in the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure – applies to the manner of litigation, cf. Book 10 Section 3 Dutch Civil Code. It has to be noted here, though, that substantive aspects of procedural law, including the question which penalties may be imposed, are governed by the lex causae (in this case: Nigerian law), as well as the substantive law of evidence, as currently expressed in Book 10 Section 13 Dutch Civil Code, including special rules on the division of the burden of proof relating to a certain legal relationship and which seek to specify the subjective rights ensuing from that legal relationship. In all other respects, the division of the burden of proof, as well as the obligation to furnish facts, is governed by the lex fori, in this case Dutch law, more specifically Dutch procedural law.

In Dutch procedural law, an appeal is considered a continuation of the proceedings in the first instance, whereby on appeal A) new factual and/or legal positions may be taken, also if they could have been brought forward earlier (the repeat function) and B) (partly for that reason) the judgment rendered in the first instance is not necessarily reviewed, but rather the claims are re-assessed, in principle based on the situation existing at the time when the ruling on appeal was rendered (ex nunc). Feature B) is specifically pertinent in the situation that the claim was dismissed in the first instance, such as is the case here.

Renewed assessment of the claims

With the grounds of appeal in the principal appeal of MD et al. and Shell’s grounds of appeal in the cross-appeal, the dispute has been submitted to the Court virtually to its fullest extent. The Court will therefore not discuss the grounds of appeal separately, but re-assess the claims of MD et al.

The factual basis underlying the claims is the leak that occurred ‘in Goi’/‘(in and) near Goi’ on 10 October 2004. This is stated in so many words in claims III and V through to VII. Due to the connection between these claims, as described below under 3.9 and 3.10, and claims I and II, that date and location must also be understood to apply to claims I and II. For claim II, this is underlined in point 474 R.

MD et al. have also reported one or two other leaks in 2003 allegedly affecting Goi and Barizaa Dooh. According to the assertion of MD et al., this leak/these leaks occurred at the village of Kegbara Dere (points 16 and 24 SoA/2), and therefore not ‘near’ the village of Goi/‘in Goi’, even though they assert that the oil leaked in the spill/spills reached the village of Goi. Since all claims lodged by MD et al. must be understood to be based on a leak ‘(in and) near’/‘in’ Goi (cf. point 272 DoA/SoA-cross/2), as has been explained above, MD et al.’s reliance on the 2003 leak/leaks at Kegbara Dere can remain undiscussed. Allowing this reliance would, after all, not lead to an award of any part of what is claimed.

The claims of MD et al. are based on three (groups of) acts/unlawful acts, namely acts/unlawful acts that are related to i) the origin of a leak, ii) Shell’s response to a leak that has arisen and iii) the decontamination of the leak (see also legal ground 2.1, first sentence). This is expressly stated in claims III.a and b, as well as in claims IV and V (on decontamination), VI (on origin) and VII (on response). In light of this, the acts referred to in claim I and underlying claim II must therefore be interpreted in the same manner. The Court will hereinafter assess the claims of MD et al. based on these three themes (‘Origin’, ‘Response’ and ‘Decontamination’). In this respect, it is noted – and this is also the interpretation of Shell (point 620 DoA/SoA-cross/2) – that ‘Response’ also covers measures that should have been taken before the leak occurred, which would have enabled Shell to respond to an occurrence of a leak in a timely and adequate manner.

Claim I – which was only lodged by Barizaa Dooh, and not also by MD – extends, strictly speaking, to the issuance of a declaratory decision that Shell is liable for the damages due to unlawful acts by Shell on the three aforementioned themes. However, the Court understands, inter alia from point 201 WS-MD, that MD et al. seek a referral to follow-up proceedings for the determination of damages pursuant to Section 612 et seq. Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, which is applicable here as part of Dutch procedural law. This is also Shell’s interpretation (points 12 and 264 DoA/SoA-cross/2). This claim revolves around the situation in the years 2004-2008, when the alleged unlawful acts were committed.

Claims IV through to VII were lodged by Barizaa Dooh and by MD, and are intended for injunctions/orders. These orders – which the district court did not issue – must be assessed based on the state of affairs at the moment this ruling is handed down (see legal ground 3.2). Claims for injunction IV and V are for the effect that the residual damage is sanitized after the decontamination (point 476 R). Claim for injunction VI is for the effect that the pipeline near Goi is kept in a good state of repair (point 469 R). Claim VII seeks, inter alia, to ensure that Shell is able to respond in a timely and adequate manner should another leak occur again near Goi.

The Court deduces from points 768, 780, 784 and 789 SoA/2 that claim III.a – which was only lodged by MD, and not also by Dooh – has two intentions. That claim for a declaratory decision serves:

a) as a prelude to the compensation to be obtained by the local residents (not being Dooh) for damages past and future;

b) to represent the public and/or environmental interest/the interest of these local residents that the oil contamination is cleaned up after all/further, and new oil contamination is prevented.

Aspect a) regards the area also covered by claim I and effectuates that that claim is also lodged for the benefit of the local residents (see point 854 SoA/2). To this extent, claim III.a is line with claim I. Aspect b) regards the area also covered by claims for injunction IV through to VII. To this extent, claim III.a is in line with claims IV through to VII. A difference between claim I and aspect a) of claim III.a is that claim III.a does not concern a referral to follow-up proceedings for the determination of damages, but encompasses future claims for compensation of the local residents. Shell’s defence, namely that the claims for compensation of the individual local residents have already expired (legal ground 4.8 of the 2015 ruling; point 123 SoA-cross/1 and point 907 DoA/SoA-cross/2), does not alter the fact – unlike Shell appears to believe – that MD still has an interest in claim III.a on account of the future damage of the local residents, whose interests MD also seeks to protect, and on account of aspect b). It may well be the case, as Shell notes in point 122 SoA-cross/1, that the Dutch court will be found to have no international jurisdiction as regards the claims for compensation to be lodged against the SPDC by said local residents. However, this does not mean that the argument Shell has attached to this, namely that the declaratory decision under claim III.a cannot form a basis for such claims for compensation, is correct. Foreign decisions of ‘superior courts’ (courts with general jurisdiction, such as this Court) may be recognized in Nigeria based on the 1961 Nigeria Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, currently Chapter C35 in the 2004 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. There are no reasons, nor have any reasons been put forward, to assume that this is not the case for the decision to be taken in this case on claim III.a. It should also be considered here that foreign decisions are generally speaking recognized in the Netherlands (Supreme Court 26 September 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2838 (Gazprombank)), so that the reciprocity requirement from the aforementioned Nigerian act cannot be viewed as a hindrance to recognition of this ruling’s decision on claim III.a in Nigeria.

Whenever the difference between both aspects of claim III.a is relevant, this claim will be designated as ‘III.a-a’ when referring to aspect a), and as ‘III.a-b’ when referring to aspect b).

Claim III.b – which was only lodged by MD, and not also by Dooh – seeks a declaratory decision that with its acts on the three themes, Shell infringed on the local resident’s fundamental right to a clean living environment. Claim II – which was only lodged by Dooh – seeks such a declaratory decision to their benefit, as the Court understands from point 854 SoA/2. This claim initially also pertained to future health damage (point 474 R), but by the document of 11 September 2012, page six, MD et al. dropped this part of their claim, see also point 215 WS-MD.

All claims have been lodged against Nigerian operating company SPDC and against the Shell parent companies. In the period up to 20 July 2005, this concerned Shell NV and Shell T&T jointly, after which RDS became the only remaining parent company. RDS was not formed by a merger of Shell NV and/or Shell T&T. Therefore, the claims relating to compensation in respect of ‘Origin’ and ‘Response’ covering the period up to and including 13 October 2004 only extend to Shell NV and Shell T&T.

Nigerian law; general

The Federal Republic of Nigeria consists of states. The Nigerian judicial system has federal courts and state courts. From high to low, the federal courts are the following: the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court. The highest state courts are the State High Courts. When reference is made below to these courts, without any addition, this is taken to mean the Nigerian courts. When referring to English courts (of the same name), this is indicated with the addition: UK.

The sources of Nigerian federal civil law include the following: English law and Nigerian legislation and case law. The English law that applies in Nigeria comprises ‘the common law of England and the doctrines of equity’ (section 32 (1) of the Interpretation Act Chapter 192 Laws of Nigeria, 1990), with the proviso that judgments of English courts dating from after Nigeria’s independence in 1960 formally have no binding authority in Nigerian courts, but do have persuasive authority and are often followed in Nigerian court decisions.

Common law has the legal remedy of damages (including the purely compensatory option of compensation). The mandatory injunction, which is based on equity (equitable remedy), only comes into play if compensation is not sufficient. The equity principles, including the principle of ‘he who comes to equity must have clean hands’ may further limit the equitable remedies. In a ruling of 10 February 2012, C 112/2002, LOR (10/2/2012) (Military Governor of Lagos State v Adebayo Adeyiga), the Supreme Court considered as follows (p. 26):

The court will always invoke its equitable jurisdiction and exercise its discretion to grant a mandatory injunction where the injury done to the plaintiff cannot be estimated and sufficiently compensated by damages and the injury to the plaintiff is so serious and material that the restoration of things to their former condition is the only method whereby justice can be adequately done.

In point 846 SoA/2, MD et al. rightfully pointed out that according to Nigerian law awarding or dismissing a claim for injunction falls under the discretionary power of the court. From the above-cited consideration of the Supreme Court it can also be deduced that a Nigerian injunction is intended to end an unlawful state (‘restoration of things’), which also covers a continuing unlawful omission. Nigerian law also has a declaratory decision, known as declaratory relief, as equitable remedy, see Supreme Court 13 April 2007, S.C. 243/2001 (Ibator v. Barakuro).

The Nigerian Evidence Act 1945, replaced with the Evidence Act 2011, forms part of Nigerian federal legislation. Section 135(1) of the 1945 version and Section 131(1) of the 2011 version convey the main rule of the division of the burden of proof:

Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

As is considered in 3.1 in fine, the ‘normal’ division of the burden of proof must be determined based on Dutch law as the lex fori, meaning in accordance with Section 150 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, which states as the main rule that the party invoking the legal effects of the facts or rights alleged by said party carries the burden of proof as regards the respective facts or rights.

The Oil Pipelines Act 1956 (OPA) also forms part of Nigerian federal legislation. Section 11(5) OPA – which MD et al. have invoked – stipulates as follows:

The holder of a licence shall pay compensation –

(a) to any person whose land or interest in land (whether or not it is land in respect of which the license has been granted) is injuriously affected by the exercise of the right conferred by the licence, for any such injurious affection not otherwise made good; and

(b) to any person suffering damage by reason of any neglect on the part of the holder or his agents, servants or workmen to protect, maintain or repair any work, structure or thing executed under the licence, for any such damage not otherwise made good; and

(c) to any person suffering damage (other than on account of his own default or on account of the malicious act of a third person) as a consequence of any breakage of or leakage from the pipeline or an ancillary installation, for any such damage not otherwise made good.

If the amount of such compensation is not agreed between any such person and the holder, it shall be fixed by a court in accordance with Part IV of this Act.

Section 19 OPA, which forms part of Part IV (‘Compensation’), stipulates the following, inter alia:

If there be any dispute as to whether any compensation is payable under any provision of this Act or if so as to the amount thereof, or as to the persons to whom such compensation should be paid, such dispute shall be determined by (…) the High Court exercising jurisdiction in the area concerned (…) there shall be an appeal to the Court of Appeal:.

Section 20(2) OPA, which also forms part of Part IV, determines as follows:

If a claim is made under subsection (5) of section 11 of this Act, the court shall award such compensation as it considers just having regard to (…).

The SPDC – the operator of the Goi pipeline– is the licence holder of that pipeline in the sense of Section 11(5) OPA. It is stated under (a) of this section that the owner, holder or user of land is entitled to compensation if he experiences nuisance as a result of activities of the licence holder (statutory nuisance). It is stated under (b) that the licence holder has a statutory duty of care to protect, maintain and repair his pipelines, and that he is obligated to pay compensation for any damage in case he fails to do so (statutory negligence). It is stated under (c) that the licence holder has strict liability for damages resulting from a leak from his pipeline (statutory strict liability), from which he is only relieved if he successfully proves that the damage is the result of the injured party’s own acts or of a malicious act of a third party, such as sabotage. This concerns an affirmative defence (‘yes, but’ defence) with respect to which the licence holder bears the burden of proof (like Shell in points 284 and 355 DoA/SoA-cross/2).

MD et al. have also invoked several torts (unlawful acts under common law), namely: the tort of negligence, the tort of nuisance and the tort of trespass to chattel.

Tort of negligence, which is comparable to a breach of the standard of care under Dutch law, requires that:

a) there is a duty of care;

b) said duty of care has been breached;

c) damages have occurred as a result.

Whether or not a duty of care exists must be determined on the basis of the so-named Caparo test:

i) is the damage foreseeable?

ii) is there proximity?

iii) is it fair, just and reasonable to assume a duty of care?

Under Nigerian law, a claimant also carries the burden of proof with respect to a), b) and c), see legal ground 3.15 and also Supreme Court 6 June 2008, [2008] 13 NWRL (Abubakar v Joseph) (Appendix 1 to Exhibit 19), legal ground 14 on p. 317, legal ground 20 on p. 318 and p. 341 – except in the case of res ipsa loquitur, a common law principle explaining that the mere occurrence of an event implies negligence, without direct or further evidence being required. In the aforementioned ruling, the following was further stated on the meaning of negligence (legal ground 12 on p. 316/p. 350):

Negligence is the omission or failure to do something which a reasonable man under similar circumstances would do, or the doing of something a reasonable man would not do.

The view expressed by Shell in point 320 DoA/SoA-cross/2 that Nigerian law has no liability for ‘pure omissions’ is therefore incorrect.

The proximity requirement will generally be met in case of physical proximity, but in absence thereof, there may still be proximity; the concept covers a range of relationships. A ruling of the predecessor of the UK Supreme Court (House of Lords 8 February 1990, [1990] ALL ER 568, [1990] 2 AC 605 (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman) – from which the name of the Caparo test is derived – states the following about the proximity requirement (p. 633):

“Proximity” is no doubt a convenient expression so long as it is realised that it is no more than a label which embraces not a definable concept but merely a description of circumstances from which, pragmatically, the courts conclude that a duty of care exists.

MD et al. have partly based their standpoints in this case on soft law, including the Environmental Guidelines and Standards for Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN), issued by the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), revised edition of 2002 (Exhibit G.2 and Exhibit 13), which their expert E. Duruigbo describes as ‘recommendations’ reflecting the ‘industry custom’ (Exhibit M.1, no. 60). It is obvious to assume, also according to the common law such as it is applied in Nigeria, that such non-binding standards – depending on their nature and contents – may aid to specify or illuminate a duty of care. This is confirmed in point 50 of the opinion M.T. Ladan and R.T. Ako of 13 December 2011, submitted by MD et al. as Exhibit L.1.

MD et al. describe the tort of nuisance as: nuisance (point 120 R), the tort of trespass to chattel as: breach of property or goods not being land (such as trees, crops and fish), whereby breach is taken to mean: inflicting damage or disrupting use (point 129 R, point 827 SoA/2). The tort of trespass to chattel requires intent or negligence, while the tort of nuisance requires unreasonable acts on the part of the party causing the nuisance (points 825 and 817 SoA/2).

Another part of common law is the rule of the English case of Ryland v Fletcher (House of Lords 17 July 1868, (LR 3 HL 330)). The court of appeal in that case described that rule as follows:

The person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at this peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

The then House of Lords affirmed this rule, with the addition that the rule only pertains to ‘non natural use’ of the land. The Rylands v Fletcher rule imposes strict liability – which incidentally is not unlimited – on the occupier of the land for the damage that occurs if the conditions of this rule are met. The strict liability of Section 11(5)(c) OPA can be viewed as the implementation of this rule in case of pipe damage.

Exclusivity of the OPA

Shell has argued that Section 11(5)(c) OPA provides an exclusive arrangement for the liability of a licence holder for damage caused by a leak from a pipeline, and that there therefore is no place for liability for such damage on a common law ground such as negligence, nuisance or trespass. In this context, Shell refers to the following rulings:

- UK High Court 20 June 2014, (2014) EWHC 719 (TCC) (Bodo v SPDC) in which (in legal ground 64) that exclusivity of the OPA is assumed;

- Court of Appeal 25 July 2017 (Nigerian Agip Oil Co v Ogbu) (Exhibit 61, Appendix 2) in which on p. 29 in an obiter dictum, referencing inter alia Bodo v SPDC, it is noted that Section 11(5) OPA has set aside the common law;

- High Court 15 January 2019 (Johnson v SPDC) (Exhibit 61, Appendix 4) in four consolidated cases in which it was determined that the OPA ‘has provided a comprehensive compensation regime’.

Before Bodo v SPDC, the Nigerian courts did not view the OPA, or Section 11(5) OPA, as exclusive. This is apparent from, for example, the ruling in the case SPDC v Otoko (Court of Appeal 25 May 1990, [1990]6 NWLR 693) (Exhibit J.5). This case concerned leaks from pipelines, so that that case (also according to Shell; point 291 DoA/SoA-cross/2) fell within the OPA’s scope of application. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal did not apply the OPA but rather common law (tort of negligence) (see, inter alia, points 19 et seq. of the dictum). In the ruling in the case of SPDC v Edamkue (Supreme Court 10 July 2009, 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 1; (2009) 6-7 S.C. 74) (Appendix 1.12 to Exhibit M.1)) the common law rule of Rylands v Fletcher was used in a case regarding a pipeline leak. In a ruling (Supreme Court 5 June 2015, LOR (5/6/2015/SC) (SPDC v Anaro) delivered after Bodo v SPDC, the Supreme Court determined in a case which (also according to Shell; point 291 DoA/SoA-cross/2) fell under the scope of application of the OPA, that the Rylands v Fletcher rule was rightfully applied (Exhibit Q.24, see mainly p. 13 of said ruling). From this it can be deduced that the Supreme Court did not view the OPA as exclusive, both before and after Bodo v SPDC. A Federal High Court (14 December 2016 (Ajanaku v Mobil) (Exhibit Q.23) considered as follows: ‘It is settled law that victims of oil operations spillage/damage can maintain an action for compensation under the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher’.

The OPA dates from 1956. From the above considerations the argument follows that this act is exclusive, was first put forward, or at least was first embraced, in a UK High Court procedure which in 2014 led to Bodo v SPDC, and was later sporadically used by lower Nigerian courts, but not by the Supreme Court, which continued to assume its non-exclusivity. In view of the system of precedent, this court must follow the Supreme Court. All the more so now the only higher Nigerian court has assumed the exclusivity, the Court of Appeal in NAOC v Ogbu, namely in an obiter dictum (see, inter alia, point 37 of the opinion of Shell’s expert F. Oditah in Exhibit 61), which has no binding effect (see Uniken Venema/Zwalve, Common Law & Civil Law, 2008, p. 80). Therefore, Shell’s argument as stated under 3.23 does not succeed. The OPA is not exclusive, so that common law legal actions are also an option, with the associated legal and equitable remedies.

The standpoint taken by Shell – following on from the aforementioned opinion in Exhibit 61 – that there is no room in the OPA for a declaratory decision, but only for compensation (point 74 WS/2-S and point 262 DoA/SoA-cross/2) is also rejected. The rulings discussed in points 44 through to 47 of the Exhibit 61-opinion only reveal that the OPA does not allow any/other damages, because it mentions ‘compensation’. From this it does not follow that a declaratory decision (whether or not as a prelude to compensation) is in conflict with the wording, system or purpose of the OPA. A declaratory decision may well be an appropriate means to settle or streamline a dispute as referred to in Section 19 OPA, which may or may not involve a declaratory decision in a dispute about the question whether or not a compensation obligation exists under the OPA, after which the amount of compensation may either be agreed between the parties, within the meaning of the last sentence of Section 11(5) OPA or may be determined by the court on the basis of Section 20(2) of said act.

Liability of a parent company under Nigerian law

The claims of MD et al. against the parent companies of Shell are governed by Nigerian law. This is agreed between the parties (see also legal ground 1.3 of the 2015 ruling as well as legal ground 3.30, cf. also Section 6 of the Dutch Unlawful Act (Conflict of Laws) Act, Article 14 Rome II Regulation). These claims are not based on a direct piercing of the corporate veil (where the separation of legal personalities between the parent company and subsidiary is disregarded), but on what is also known as an indirect piercing of the corporate veil, namely the liability of the parent company for its own acts or omissions with respect to third parties that were/are affected by the acts or omissions of its subsidiary (inter alia, points 126 and 127 SoA/1) – based on the negligence/breach of a duty of care.

Shell has noted that there is no Nigerian precedent for this liability of a parent company. A question that was posed by the Court at the 2020 hearing in response to this remark was answered on behalf of Shell that, to its knowledge, no case had ever occurred in which a parent company was called to account/included in a summons (RH-2020, p. 13) in a context such as the one in this case. Therefore, it must be established that in Nigeria no comparable case of parent company liability has been settled in legal proceedings. Considering this state of affairs, English case law – which after all has persuasive authority in Nigeria – must be consulted.

From point 80 of UK Court of Appeal 25 April 2012, [2012] EWCA Civ 525 (Chandler v Cape) (Exhibit 25) and points 44-54 of UK Supreme Court 10 April 2019, [2019] UKSC 20 (Vedanta v Lungowe) the following rule can be deduced: if the parent company knows or should know that its subsidiary unlawfully inflicts damage on third parties in an area where the parent company involves itself in the subsidiary, the starting point is that the parent company has a duty of care in respect of the third parties to intervene.

Especially in view of consideration 54 of the Vedanta v Lugowe ruling, there is no reason to assume that the Nigerian court would not adopt the Vedanta rule, as shown above. Therefore, this rule must be deemed to form part of Nigerian law. Since Nigerian law is identical to English law in this respect, it would make no difference whatsoever if the parent company liability were to be assessed not according to Nigerian law (see legal ground 3.27) but to English law.

In this context, the following can also be noted:

- The Shell parent companies are not licence holders in the sense of the OPA; this act therefore does not apply to them;

- In light of the view under 3.24 that the OPA does not have an exclusive nature, this act does not preclude – unlike Shell believes (point 770 DoA/SoA-cross/2) – an assumption of parent company liability on the basis of common law;

- Along with Shell (point 770 DoA/SoA-cross/2), it must be assumed that, looking at specifically this case, if there is no tort of negligence/nuisance/trespass to chattel of the subsidiary – perhaps with the exception of special circumstances, of which there is no evidence here – a breach of a duty of care on the part of the parent company cannot be assumed.

The extent of the contamination

The JIT report states that the equivalent of about 150 barrels of oil leaked in the 2004 spill, which comes down to about 24,000 litres. The Clean-Up certificate states that this caused contamination in area of about 311,000 and 23,500 m2, the equivalent of more than 50 football pitches. MD et al. have cast doubt on the accuracy of these figures (see, inter alia, points 86-88 WS-MD, point 10 SoA/2 and points 139 et seq. WS/2-MD), while failing to provide the figures (approximations) which should be assumed, even though logically speaking they should have done so (legal ground 3.15), especially when it comes to the size of the contaminated area they could have determined on the basis of their own investigation. However, the Court understands from points 79-88 WS-MD, point 10 SoA/2 and points 146 and 157 WS/2-MD, that the argument of MD et al. regarding the inaccuracy of the figures is only in support of their standpoint that the JIT report and Clean-Up certificate are unreliable (cf. point 53 WS/2-S).

Introduction

Shell has put forward several preliminary defences, which were largely processed in the 2015 ruling. That ruling discussed Shell’s reliance on the lack of a right of action of Barizaa Dooh and his son Eric Dooh (see legal grounds 5.1 through to 5.7 of said ruling), but no final decision on that has been taken. In the 2015 ruling, Shell’s reliance on the general dismissal of MD’s right of action was definitively rejected. Shell subsequently and specifically put forward in points 223-230 and 932 and 933 DoA/SoA-cross/2 that MD et al. have no case based on the OPA due to non-fulfilment of a condition precedent. The Court will now assess/further assess, in the aforementioned order, the preliminary defences on which no definitive decision has yet been taken.

Right of action of Barizaa Dooh (the father)

MD et al. have asserted as follows. Barizaa Dooh had a farm and fish farm along the creek at Goi. He used and occupied the land on which he grew his crops and economic trees (jointly: the plans) and on which he had installed the fish ponds. Due to the leak of 10 October 2004 – which occurred at about one kilometre from the land and the fish ponds of Dooh – the oil flowed into a creek which discharged into Goi Creek, as a result of which the oil flowed onto Dooh’s land and into his fish ponds. Because of this, the land and the plants were damaged and destroyed, the fish in the ponds died and the ponds became unusable for fish farming and fishing. In the fire that followed the leak the plants in the area affected by the leak were also destroyed.

To contest the right of action of Barizaa Dooh, Shell has put forward three arguments, namely a) that he should have submitted documents showing how he acquired the ownership/right of use of the land the fish ponds, b) that he failed to make clear the exact location of the land and fish ponds, and c) that it does not appear that the oil had leaked up to the land the fish ponds and caused damage there (inter alia, points 119-121 WS-S; points 115, 243, 244, 253, 254, 562 and 564 DoA/SoA-cross/2).

Section 11(5)(b) and (c) OPA confers right of action on ‘any person suffering damage’. The words ‘any person’ show that the group of persons with a right of action is very broad and that no specific requirements are set as to the capacity of the injured party. This does not tally with expecting an injured party that is able to prove that they have the capacity of owner or (lawful) user – which is not required – to also demonstrate how they acquired the ownership or right of use. The same applies to a claim on the basis of negligence. This also does not require specific requirements as to the capacity of the injured party. Insofar as the claims of Dooh are based on Section 11(5)(b) and (c) OPA and the tort of negligence, Shell’s argument a) does not succeed for these reasons alone. Whether or not this argument is applicable to the other bases of the claims of Dooh needs no consideration, in view of the considerations in 5.28, 6.15, 7.31 and 8.6.

In the first instance, MD et al. have submitted as Exhibit M.4 a signed statement of the Goi community from 2012, in which the community declares that the four fish ponds that can be seen on the attached Google Earth maps ‘belong to’ Barizaa Dooh. On appeal, in DoA-cross/2, MD et al. have submitted a survey plan with a map of 29 September 2019 as Exhibit Q.59 (C), depicting the land and ponds in a red circle. It is stated on the map that this concerns the ‘property area’ of Dooh. The positioning of the land and the fish ponds on this map are in line with their positioning on the map stated in point 28 IS: Dooh’s area is situated in the bend of Goi Creek at least one kilometre from the leak point. According to the assertions of MD et al. in point 31 WS/2-MD, following on from points 92 and 106 DoA-cross/2, a survey plan is an official, certified document on which the location and demarcation of a piece of land is depicted, comparable to a cadastral map in the Netherlands. This is not contested by Shell, which has also not contested the accuracy of the survey plan in Exhibit Q.59 (C). From the survey plan, as viewed in context with the map contained in point 28 IS, it is sufficiently clear where the lands and fish ponds of Barizaa Dooh are situated, and that at least he was the user of the lands and fish ponds (‘property area’). Incidentally, at the 2020 hearing, outside of the WS/2-S, after years of contesting the location, Shell informed that the location of Barizaa Dooh’s fish farm was not in dispute (RH-2020, p.12). Therefore, Shell’s argument b) also does not hold.

As Exhibit Q.54, MD et al. have submitted a map, issued by Shell to the experts, made in 2009 by Shell’s Geomatics Department, ‘based on JIV acquired data’, showing the ‘areas affected’ by the leak at Goi of 11 October 2004 (see point 138 SoA/2). It shows that the impact of the leak, regardless of its precise location, spilled over to (the ‘pond’ in) the bend of Goi Creek, where Dooh’s area is situated. Based on this map1., it must be concluded that the oil flow from the leak reached the area used by Dooh and covered it at least a part of it and probably a large part of it. No substantiated defence/sufficiently substantiated defence against this has been provided in point 563 DoA/SoA-cross/2. To specify, and superfluously, it is noted that a comparison of the coordinates with the pond on Shell’s own map with the coordinates of Dooh’s area on the survey plan, and not contested by Shell, shows that this area is situated at the site of the contaminated pond, which confirms that the oil reached Dooh’s area. It can therefore be considered certain that Dooh incurred at least some damage as a result of the leak. Shell’s argument c) also does not hold, insofar it relates to the 2004 leak.

It must be concluded that Barizaa Dooh had a right of action in respect of this leak pursuant to Section 11(5)(b) and (c) OPA and pursuant to the tort of negligence. This also applies to MD where it seeks to protect the interests of currently unknown persons living in the vicinity of the spillpoint, within the area measuring about 50 football pitches, and the environment affected by the leak.

It has not been made clear where the leaks MD et al. claimed to have occurred in 2003 took place exactly. This means that Shell’s argument c) in relation to these alleged leaks (see, inter alia, points 110, 235 and 273 DoA/SoA-cross/2) cannot be deemed as having been contested. If, despite of the considerations in 3.5, MD et al.’s reliance on these leaks were relevant, it could not be awarded for this reason.

Right of action of Eric Dooh (the son)

In legal ground 5.5 of the 2015 ruling, the Court ruled that Eric Dooh was entitled to institute the appeal in his own name, since Shell failed to contest (with sufficient substantiation) his assertions that under Nigerian law he, in brief, is the heir of Barizaa Dooh, who died in 2012. After the 2015 ruling, Shell did not address this issue anymore (see points 236-241 DoA/SoA-cross/2), so that that ruling must currently be considered as final.

What remains is the question discussed but not yet answered in legal ground 5.3 and 5.4 of the 2015 ruling whether or not the rights of action invoked by Barizaa Dooh in this case extinguished following his death, considering the ruling in another case between Barizaa Dooh and the SPDC about damage (caused by oil pollution) to Barizaa Dooh’s property in the period 1994-1996 (Federal High Court 6 December 2013 (Dooh v SPDC)). In that case it was ruled (p. 5) that the action was in personam and ‘an action in personam (…) will abate immediately on the Plaintiff’s demise’. Shell has further substantiated its viewpoint, that the above-mentioned question must be answered affirmatively, with the Exhibit 61 opinion of Oditah (see points 165-170 of this Exhibit) as stated in legal ground 3.25, submitted into the proceedings with DoA/SoA-cross/2. MD et al. have responded to this with an opinion of Chianu and Duruigbo, submitted as Exhibit Q.63 with WS/2-MD (hereinafter: the Q.63 opinion).

Shell’s Exhibit 61 opinion starts from the following general rules in Nigerian law (point 165):

Under Nigerian Law, only claims in rem can be inherited. Actions in rem do not abate on the death of the plaintiff, unlike actions in personam, which abate, in accordance with the latin maxim personalis moritur cum persona (meaning: a personal right of action dies with the person).

In point 18 of the Exhibit Q.63 opinion, MD et al. cite a passage from a historical overview given by the Lord Chancellor about the above-referred maxim (1943 SC (HL) 19 at 26 (Stewart v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co.). From this passage, it becomes clear that this common law maxim was subject to important limitations and ‘[was] in effect swept away by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934’. Section 1(1) of that act reads as follows:

Subject to the provisions of this section, on the death of any person after the commencement of this Act all causes of action subsisting against or vested in him shall survive against, or, as the case may be, for the benefit of his estate. Provided that this subsection shall not apply to causes of action for defamation or seduction or for inducing one spouse to leave or remain apart from the other (…).

The following can be read in the article ‘Death and Tort’ by Steve Hedley in Death Rites and Rights (Belinda Brooks-Gordon et al, eds 2007) 241, at 242 (point 30 of the Q.63 opinion):

The modern position, established since 1934, is that tort actions have a life of their own, and do not die with either of the people involved in them (…). This reversed the early common law rule that actio personalis moritur cum persona (…). The modern rule – that rights of action usually don’t die with either of the people involved, even if they are ‘personal rights’ – is therefore the opposite of the medieaval rule.

The 1934 Act does not apply in Nigeria, but for Rivers State, where Goi is situated, a provision is included in Administration of Estates Law, Cap. 1, The Laws of Rivers State of Nigeria, namely in section 13(1) (point 32 of Exhibit Q.63), which is almost identical to section 1(1) of said act. The Administration of Estates Laws of the then Bendel State contained a provision that was identical to this section 13(1) ‘provision’. The Court of Appeal ((2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1020) 71 (Okumo Oil Palm Ltd. v Okpame)) ruled based on this that the maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’ does not apply to an action for overdue salary payments, regarding which the following was considered (see points 29, 35 and 39 of Exhibit Q.63):

‘From the above provision, it is my view that the Maxim is applicable in a personal action founded on the tort of defamation or seduction of a wife, etc, it does not avail where interest accrues to the estate of the deceased’.

Considering this state of affairs, Shell’s starting point on which its Exhibit 61 opinion is based (see legal ground 4.11) cannot be accepted as accurate and – also considering that which has been put forward in the otherwise not contested Q.63 opinion – it must be assumed that under Nigerian law the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona only applies to certain highly personal actions of deceased persons in which the heirs have no further interest.

The case that led to Dooh v SPDC did not revolve around a highly personal action of Barizaa Dooh. His heirs also had an interest in the action. Therefore, Dooh v SPDC can be deemed to be in conflict with Nigerian law, noting that the reference in Dooh v SPDC to the ruling in the case Oyeyemi v Commissioner for Local Government (Supreme Court (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.226) 661) is regarded as not effective, because that case concerned a claim relating to a chieftaincy position, which is an issue of a highly personal nature. Concurring with the Q.63 opinion (point 55) it must be concluded that Dooh v SPDC ‘was given in error and not guided by relevant precedent’, so that it cannot have a precedent effect. Even if Dooh v SPDC should be acknowledged in the Netherlands – which can be left undiscussed here – it does not benefit Shell, unlike it believes (point 30 WS/1-S), since Dooh v SPDC pertained to a different factual situation than that of this case and therefore does not constitute a res judicata for this case.

The rights of action of the father may also be invoked by Eric Dooh, as follows from the foregoing.

Right of action of MD et al. under the OPA

Shell argues that MD et al. have no right of action under the OPA, because they do not meet the condition (condition precedent) set out in the last sentence of Section 11(5) OPA to be able to claim compensation at law based on that condition, namely that the parties must have first consulted each other in an attempt to reach agreement on the amount of compensation. MD et al. counter this with the statement that – if the OPA even contains such a condition precedent – which they contest (points 14 and 21-24 DoA-cross/2) it cannot be alleged against them since the amount of compensation is not yet at issue (points 14 and 27-32 DoA-cross/2).

In assessing this point of contention, the Court states first and foremost that Shell has failed to argue that as an interest group MD cannot invoke Section 11(5) OPA. The fact that Shell believes that MD has no right of action (see the heading above point 223 DoA/SoA-cross/2) due to not meeting the alleged ‘consultation’ condition in that section, and not in the alternative sense, indicates that it – rightly – assumes that there is no further hindrance to deem MD entitled to bring an action based on that section. In this context, reference is made to legal ground 4.3 of the 2015 ruling (c+d).

Section 19 OPA distinguishes between, inter alia: ‘any dispute as to whether any compensation is payable under any provision of this Act’ and ‘any dispute’ ‘as to the amount thereof’. The last sentence of Section 11(5) OPA, containing the alleged condition precedent, only pertains to disputes on ‘the amount of such compensation’. Claims I and III.a-a, which are partially based on the OPA, are for declaratory decisions with a referral to follow-up proceedings for the determination of damages, and declaratory decisions as a prelude/basis for future claims for compensation, respectively. Those claims therefore pertain to disputes about the question ‘as to whether any compensation is payable’ and not, or not yet, about the question of ‘the amount of such compensation’. The alleged condition precedent does not come into play here. Therefore, MD et al. have rightfully put forward that this cannot be alleged against them.

Superfluously, the Court notes the following. MD et al. sent notices of liability to the SPDC and RDS before the summons in case c, to which the SPDC responded with the remark that it ‘under no obligation is to compensate your clients for the damage claimed (…)’. During the appeal proceedings, the Court repeatedly requested/urged the parties to examine whether or not they could reach a mutual agreement (see, inter alia, p. 6 of the record of appearance of the parties of 24 November 2016 and p. 18 of the RH-2020). At the 2020 hearing, Shell noted that a settlement is not an option – as the Court understands it: for Shell – because MD also seeks to protect the interests of three communities, including the Goi community, and not just those of several individual claimants. Taking all this into account, Shell effectively halted ahead of time the consultations it now emphasizes so much. Considering this state of affairs, the condition precedent must be deemed as fulfilled, in view of the underlying principle, as regards Dutch law, of Book 6 Section 23 subsection 1 Dutch Civil Code.

Claims I and III.a-a against the SPDC in respect of Origin

The Court will now assess claims I and III.a-a of MD et al. against the subsidiary SPDC insofar as they pertain to the theme of Origin. These claims – also as regards claim III.a, see legal ground 4.16 – are firstly based on Section 11(5)(c) OPA, which imposes strict liability on the SPDC for damages ensuing from a leak in a pipeline. However, this strict liability does not apply without limitation; it does not apply, inter alia, if the damage is the result of a malicious act of a third person, such as is the case with third-party sabotage.

Sabotage defence: burden of proof and threshold of proof

The SPDC asserts that the leak was caused by sabotage. MD et al. have contested this. According to them, the leak was the result of overdue maintenance. Shell has not argued that the sabotage it has presumed was caused by Barizaa Dooh or the local residents whose interests MD seeks to protect. Shell bases its defence on third-party sabotage.

It is – rightfully – not in dispute that Shell has the burden of proof as regards the third-party sabotage it alleges (see also legal ground 3.17 in fine). However, it is in dispute which evidence evaluation standard (threshold of proof) applies here: is that the special standard for civil cases, beyond reasonable doubt, such as MD et al. believe, or the regular standard of preponderance of weight of evidence, such as Shell believes (points 359 and 365 DoA/2)?

The Nigerian Evidence Act 2011, already discussed in legal ground 3.15, states the following, inter alia:

134 Standard of proof in civil cases

The burden of proof shall discharged on the balance of probabilities in all civil proceeding.

135 standard of proof where commission of crime in issue and burden where guilt of crime etc. asserted

(a) If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceedings is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(…).

Section 138 subsection 1 of the 1945 version of the act stipulated the same as Section 135(a) of the 2011 version.

These legislative texts at first glance seem to suggest, as Shell notes in point 15 WS/2-S, inter alia, that in cases of criminal offences committed by a non-party, such as with third-party sabotage, the special standard of beyond reasonable doubt does not apply. However, according to MD et al. Nigerian courts do apply this special standard in third-party sabotage cases.

The Court first of all points out that in the Supreme Court ruling in the SPDC v Edamkue case of 2009, referred to in legal ground 3.24, the beyond reasonable doubt standard was used in a civil oil leak case in which third-party sabotage was invoked, as the Court understands. This is not out of the ordinary considering Section 138 subsection 1 of the Evidence Act 1945.

From the ruling of a Court of Appeal (7 December 2011, (2011)LPELR-9783(CA) (SPDC v. Firibeb) (Appendix 1 to Exhibit 60)) regarding Section 11(5)(b) and (c) OPA it becomes clear that in the first instance, the Federal High Court ruled (p. 8): ‘I do agree (…) that the standard of proof required for claims of vandalisation and acts of a third party are high. Vandalization and acts of a third party conno[n]tes criminality and the standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt’. On appeal in that case, the SPDC did not submit grounds for appeal against this judgment.

The ruling of a Court of Appeal of 17 December 2018 (2018)17NWLR (Pt. 1649) 420 (SPDC v Okeh) (Exhibit Q.60, Appendix A) also concerned third-party sabotage. In an explanation of the law on p. 436/437, reference is made to the beyond reasonable doubt standard from SPDC v Edamkue and to Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act. From this it can deduced that this Court of Appeal effectively applied the beyond reasonable doubt standard. The fact that on p. 439, second paragraph, mention is made of reliable proof does not take away from this, especially not since that paragraph emphasizes that in that case there was actually no proof at all for sabotage (‘little or no iota of proof ‘).

Another case between the SPDC and Okeh, in which a Federal High Court gave a decision on 20 February 2018 (Exhibit Q.60, Appendix B) also involved third-party sabotage. This court considered the following as regards the proof to be submitted: ‘I entirely agree with the submission of (…) that allegations of crime in civil matters must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and specially pleaded and particularized’. It was then determined that this threshold had been met.

In I.T. Amachree, Compensation claims relating to cruel oil spillage & land acquisitions for oil & gas fields in Nigeria (A Suggested Practice Guide), Peral Publishers, 2011, p. 315 (Exhibit Q.14) the following can be read:

Ordinarily, where a criminal allegation forms part of a civil action, the standard of proof of that allegation is beyond reasonable doubt by virtue of section 138(1) of the Evidence Act. Pipeline vandalism is a criminal offence by virtue of section 3(7)(a) and (b) of the Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous) Act, 1984. It is therefore, submitted that companies alleging this criminality of sabotage must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the particular spillage complained of was caused by the act of third parties and without their negligence.

Shell and its experts Oditah and Ayoola could not identify a single legal decision in which the regular standard pursuant to Section 134 Evidence Act 2011 rather than the beyond reasonable doubt standard was used in third-party sabotage cases to counter the legal sources discussed in 5.6 through to 5.9, which strongly suggest that in legal practice the beyond reasonable doubt standard is applied in cases involving third-party sabotage. In his opinion in Exhibit 77 (under 224) Ayoola acknowledged that there is a ‘temptation for civil courts’ to interpret Section 138(1)/135(1) Evidence Act in a way that requires beyond reasonable doubt, also in cases of non-party sabotage. The Court finds that under applicable Nigerian law, as it is applied by the Nigerian courts, this high threshold of proof must be applied in third-party sabotage cases. The fact that Oditah and Ayoola deem this incorrect, does not alter this. The opinions of these party experts carry insufficient weight in relation to the legal practice, as is evident from 5.6 through to 5.9.

As is evident from the foregoing, there is a specific threshold of proof in Nigeria to prove sabotage. Such a specific rule can be considered as belonging to the substantive law of evidence, which is subject to the lex causae (see legal ground 3.1), because it is closely related to substantive law. Unlike argued by Shell, inter alia, in points 11-14 WS/2-S, it is not the case that in a situation like this, whether special or not, the threshold of proof to be applied is determined by Dutch law as the lex fori.

The Court will now assess if Shell has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the leak at Goi of 10 October 2004 was caused by sabotage.

Evaluation of the evidence

In the first instance, Shell presented the following as proof that the sabotage it alleged was caused by a saw cut to contest the argument of MD et al. that the leak at Goi was caused by failed weld:

- the JIT report, which concludes that the ground at the leak site showed signs of previous excavation and that the soil was more loose than the ground around it and contained fresh grass, and also that there was a 46 centimetre long saw cut, made by unknown persons;

- videos made during the JIT visit, which allegedly confirm the conclusions from the JIT report;

The district court found this evidence sufficient to deem sabotage by means of a saw cut as certain, regarding which the district court also considered that MD et al. failed to substantiate that there was a weld at the damaged location.

In the 2018 ruling, the Court ordered an expert opinion with the following areas that require investigation:

1) To what extent does the available material enable you to obtain a complete picture of the possible cause of the leak? If the material is insufficient, which extra information do you need?

2) If the current material enables you to render an opinion: in your expert opinion, what caused the leak? On what grounds do you base your opinion?

3) In your expert opinion, are there other possible causes of the leak? If so, which are they and on what grounds do you base this opinion?

4) Is it possible on the basis of the available material to draw a definitive conclusion about the cause of the leak?

5) Are there other facts and circumstances you deem relevant for answering the questions?

It was originally planned for the experts to physically examine the hole in the pipeline (legal ground 6.3 of the 2015 ruling), but due to the unsafe situation on site this plan was abandoned (see, inter alia, point 2.2 of Shell’s ‘Memo for the appearance of the parties of 24 November 2016 (in cases a through to e))’. So the experts carried out a desk research. The experts made the following remark at the end of their final report:

‘We are surprised that (…) in 2015, the line was depressurized and filled with water (…), When a pipeline is in this condition we would have thought it would be prudent of Shell to remove the repair clamp and finally confirm that the point of leak was external interference’.

Before the 2020 hearing, MD et al. submitted at the request of the Court the relevant documents, some digitally, as Appendices 1 through to 18, about the creation of the experts’ report (hereinafter referred to as B-D 1 through to 18). One of these documents is the experts’ draft report of 18 September 2018, designated as B-D 12, to which Shell responded (B-D 13) on 16 October 2018 and also MD et al. (B-D 15). Thereafter, MD et al. sent an e-mail with questions and remarks in response to Shell’s B-D 13 input (B-D 16). B-D 17 contains an e-mail exchange between the parties and the experts. B-D 18 is an e-mail from expert Sowerby to the Court.

Among other documents, the experts asked Shell for reports of so-called In-Line Inspections (ILI) of the pipeline (see B-D 1). With an ILI run, a type of robot (an intelligent pig) moves through the pipe and inspects it from the inside. In B-D 2 from 2017 (in the expert opinion, referred to as W) Shell answered that no ILI reports were available for Goi, because Shell had not had access to that area since 1993, and ‘until last year’ had not been able to carry out an ILI. According to the experts, this answer suggest that an ILI run had been carried out after all (namely ‘last year’), which made them wonder why that ILI report had not been issued (p. 15, first and second paragraph of the final report; p. 12, second paragraph of the draft report). Shell then submitted on 16 October 2018 – after the parties had received the draft report – several pages of the report on an ILI run carried out in 2016 by a company called Rosen (B-D 14, Exhibit C(1), in the expert opinion referred to as AN, see also B-D 13, p. 23). In their final report, the experts noted (on p. 19, point 4) that they had not received all ‘available information (e.g. full ILI reports)’. In points 6 and 136 SoA/2, MD et al. also noted that Shell had not submitted the full report of the ILI run carried out at Goi in 2015. In general, MD et al. complained that Shell provided the information requested by the experts either not at all or too late (point 88 WS/2-MD).

On 17 December 2018, the experts issued their final report. The parties gave their respective interpretations of the report. According to MD et al., there is too much doubt among the experts to assume sabotage, while according to Shell, the experts arrive at the conclusion that the leak was caused by sabotage, even according to the beyond reasonable doubt standard. The final report leaves room for both interpretations at first reading. On the one hand, the final report states that it is not possible to come to a definitive conclusion on the cause of the leak, and that most information only ‘tends towards’ sabotage (p. 19, points 1 and 2), while not all available information was provided, which is in line with the interpretation of MD et al. But on the other hand, the final report states that there are ‘no realistic other alternatives’ (p. 19, point 3), which is more in line with Shell’s interpretation. A further analysis of the experts’ report shows the following (references pertain to the final report, unless stated otherwise).

First of all: based on the videos, the experts plainly established that the leak was not caused by external corrosion (p. 14, first paragraph).

About the JIT report, the expert opinion notes that it is of such ‘poor quality’ – particularly due to the lack of photographs and also due to the absence of measurements made at the site of the leak – that it severely hinders the verification of the sabotage assumed by the JIT (p. 20, second paragraph and p. 19, point 1 and 4), that after viewing the videos there are doubts about the strong statement as laid down in the JIT report that there is proof of previous excavation (p. 14, fourth paragraph) and that based on the videos the information is too limited and too lacking in detail to confirm the conclusion of the JIT, namely that there is a saw cut (p. 14, first paragraph). The experts have stated that based on the ‘poor videos coverage’ they believed that there could be a ‘failed weld’ (p. 20, second paragraph). However, the experts believe that the clamp used is less suitable for repairing a defect or leak in a weld, although they do not deem it impossible to use that clamp for that purpose (p.14, last paragraph).

The observations presented in legal ground 5.19 were already stated in the draft report, at least their essence. Based on the observations, questions 1 through to 3 of the Court were answered by the draft report:

1. From the available material and information, it is not possible to make a decisive conclusion about the cause of the leak.

Required additional information would be:

* (…)

* The result of the suggested (assumed) ILI-run (…) which would prove conclusively that it isn’t a weld.

2. Information is lacking to undoubtedly select the most probable cause. Most information tends towards external interference, possibly with a hack saw, as is said to be concluded in the JIT report, but the information is insufficient or too vague to prove that it is not a defective weld, possibly in combination with some internal corrosion (…).

3. See answer on (ii), no realistic other alternatives.

So, the draft report expresses the view that the information from the JIT report and the associated videos may tend towards sabotage/a saw cut, but that it is insufficient to designate sabotage/a saw cut as the most likely cause.

The experts’ final report (p. 21) the answers to questions 1 and 2 contains information that ‘from additional information supplied by Shell on 16 October 2018, (…) AN, including the 2015 ILI report, we can make more conclusive observations concerning the leak’. Subsequently:

- question 2 was answered with that the most available information points at external interference, based on the information from the JIT report and the pages issued on the ILI run;

- question 3 was answered as follows: ‘see answer (ii), no realistic other alternatives, based on the received information as mentioned under 2’;

- question 4 was answered with that based on the information received, the experts had a ‘fair confidence level’ that the leak was caused by a saw cut, but if the JIT report would have had good photographs and measurements, and if all information had been provided (for instance, the full ILI report), that ‘confidence level’ would have been much higher.

The Court understands that, considering legal ground 5.19, the idea as referred to in 5.21 continued to underlie the final report, and that the differences between the answers in draft report and the final report were caused by the pages from the ILI report submitted after the draft report. The second and third paragraphs on p. 15 of the final report show that several of the initial concerns of the experts regarding the exact location of the leak point were taken away by the information from those pages, and that that information showed the most likely position of the defect. The second bullet point of the fourth paragraph on p. 15 states that according to Shell, that position was at 48002 metres from the start of the pipeline. The fourth paragraph on p. 15 also shows that the submitted pages – pertaining to the section of pipeline (of about 1.84 kilometre) between 47361.62 and 49206.43 metres from the start (see Exhibit C(1) of B-D 14) – only reveal 16 cases of metal loss, which were repaired with a sleeve clamp, and that none of the defects underneath the repair clamps were associated with a weld. If there were no doubt that the leak around which this case revolves was located in that section of pipeline, the conclusion that the leak was not due to a failed weld would be inevitable, seeing as it has been established that that leak was repaired with a sleeve clamp, see also the phrase ‘which would prove conclusively that it isn’t a weld’ to question 1 of the draft report2.. It is noteworthy that the experts do not state: ‘the leak is at the 48002 metre position, as indicated by Shell, and there is no weld underneath the sleeve clamp, according to Rosen (see p. 276 of Exhibit C(1) of B-D 14), therefore the leak could not have been caused by a failed weld, and must have therefore been caused by sabotage’. The fact that the experts did not go so far, but stopped at a ‘fair confidence level’ that the leak was caused (not by a weld but) by a saw cut, can only be explained, it seems, that they were insufficiently certain that the leak occurred in the section of pipeline covered by the submitted pages from the ILI report. The experts also did not positively identify the location of the leak and did not address the 48002 metre position mentioned by Shell; they only discussed the most likely position of the leak, while the exact location of the leak is, of course, of vital importance. In light of all this and considering the fact that the experts themselves deem a higher confidence level possible, the fair confidence level adopted by the experts cannot be construed to mean that they consider it beyond reasonable doubt that the leak was caused by sabotage/a saw cut. Theirs is a substantially lower level of confidence, to which it is inherent that one more alternative options are possible. Considering this state of affairs, no independent significance may be attached to the answer to question 3 in the final report. The answer was formulated based on ‘the received information as mentioned under 2’, that is: the information from the JIT report and the submitted pages of the ILI run, and therefore in disregard of the uncertainty about the location of the leak. What is more, by copying the Roman numeral (ii), while regular numbers were used for the questions, it would appear that the answer to question 3 in the final report was copy-pasted from the answer to question 3 in the draft expert opinion, which, with the reference to question 2 (‘(ii)’), only expressed that alternatives other than external interference and a defective weld were excluded, and therefore not that a defective weld was excluded.

Insofar as any specific objections against the expert opinion can be read in the assertions of Shell (such as in point 139 DoA/2), they cannot succeed on the ground of the aforesaid considerations.

The Court accepts and adopts the expert opinion, as reflected and interpreted in the foregoing. This brings the Court to the opinion that based on the available information sabotage is the most likely hypothesis for the origin of the leak, but that it has not been established/proven beyond reasonable doubt that sabotage was indeed the cause of the leak.

The following must also be considered. The experts expressly asked Shell for the full ILI report of the Goi pipe, already in their e-mail of 2 August 2017 (‘Necessary information (…): A. (…) 3. Detailed full reports of In-Line Inspections of the pipelines including specifications of ILI devices used. 4. Exact location of leak, also referenced on ILI report. (…)’, B-D 1). Shell responded that (i) no ILI reports were available for Goi and (ii) that the leak was located in the 1990 Nkpoku and Bomu pipeline; the information Shell provided then pertained to that section of the pipeline (B-D 2 and 3). Both points have been proven to be wrong. As regards (ii) it has been established that the leak was situated in another section of the pipeline, namely between Bomu and Bonny Terminal, constructed in 1964; this point was noted by MD in a letter dated 22 November 2017 (B-D 4), thereby rectifying the point. Nevertheless, it appears that Shell did not provide the information as requested by the experts to pinpoint the right section of pipeline, as explained by MD et al. (points 90-91 WS/2-MD). As regards (i), Shell did have an ILI report after all, namely the above-discussed 2015 ILI report by Rosen. Only after the experts had established in their draft report of 18 September 2018 (B-D 12) that they could not draw a clear conclusion on the basis of the material made available to them, which made it clear that sabotage had not been established, Shell produced this ILI report. But Shell only provided a small part of the report, namely several pages it found relevant (a few pages of the 35-page report; 7 pages of the 382-page test result report; B-D 13 and 14). Shell did not explain why it did not comply with the request of the court-appointed experts to submit the full ILI report, nor did Shell put forward that it had a serious reason for doing so. Shell has stated that it sent ‘all relevant required information’. In the final report, the experts clarify that the full ILI report should have been provided: p. 19: ‘if we had received all available information (e.g. full ILI reports)…’), and also emphasize that they have based the report on limited information (‘some pages of the 2015 ILI report from Rosen were supplied’ (p. 15), ‘the selected pages of the report’ (p. 20); underlining added by the Court. This means that Shell withheld documents which the experts deemed necessary for their investigation without justification. This is contrary to Section 198 subsection 3 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure and also to the interlocutory ruling of 27 March 2018 (‘rules that the parties will issue the information required by the experts, if available’). It should also be noted that it is up to the experts, and not to Shell, to determine which information is relevant to the investigation. In the opinion of the Court, Shell has failed to comply with the duty to tell the truth/duty to assist (Section 21 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure; Section 198 subsection 3 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). For the Court, this is reason to lay the uncertainty about the cause of the leak – (also) separate from the considerations in 5.23 and regardless of the threshold of proof to be used – at the feet of Shell. Also on this ground, the Court arrives at the opinion that Shell’s defence of sabotage fails.

Conclusion on claims I and III.a-a against the SPDC in respect of Origin

Pursuant to Section 11(5)(c) OPA, the SPDC therefore has strict liability – to Dooh and MD as the representative of the other residents – in respect of the origin of the leak. The Court issues a declaratory decision on this, allowing claims I and III.a-a to this extent, whereby it has been taken into account that it is likely that Dooh and the other residents incurred damage as a result of this leak (some damage has even been established, see legal grounds 4.6 and 4.7), which underlines once more their interest in the declaratory decision. This also means that the referral to follow-up proceedings for the determination of damages sought by Dooh with his claim I is also allowable. Those proceedings will deal in greater depth with the questions of which damage and loss items are eligible for compensation under Nigerian law applicable to these questions, and how the damage should be estimated.

Above point 293 of the IS in case c (against the SPDC and a parent company) and in case d (against two parent companies) is the heading ‘In the alternative: insufficient security of the pipeline’. In point 214 SoA/2, MD et al. have stated that when it is established beyond reasonable doubt – as the Court understands: only when – sabotage was involved, a further investigation is needed to establish whether or not ‘Shell’ was negligent in the prevention of the sabotage. From this the Court deduces that the assertions of MD et al. regarding negligence of the SPDC and the Shell parent companies to sufficiently secure, or have secured, the pipeline against sabotage, were brought to bear in case/under the condition that sabotage has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Since this condition has not been met, the assertions of MD et al. can remain undiscussed.

MD et al. no longer have an interest in an assessment of claims I and III.a-a against the SPDC based on a tort/the Rylands v Fletcher rule in light of the considerations in 5.27 and 5.28. Incidentally, the claims would not have been allowable based on the torts of negligence, nuisance or trespass to chattel, because as is apparent from legal ground 5.25, sabotage – although not proven beyond reasonable doubt – rather than overdue maintenance is the most likely hypothesis for the origin of the leak, so that it cannot be determined that the leak was due to negligence or unreasonable acts of the SPDC.

Claims I and III.a-a against the parent companies in respect of Origin

To be able to assume a duty of care of the parent company/companies, MD et al. – which have the burden of proof in this respect – must at least prove that the subsidiary SPDC acted negligently or unreasonably (see legal ground 3.28). But it has not been proven, as explained in legal ground 5.29. This means that claims I and III.a-a in respect of Origin are not allowable against the parent company/companies.

It should be noted here that in this context Shell’s defence that the leak was due to sabotage rather than insufficient maintenance needs not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This threshold of proof must be deemed to apply only to the party on which the burden of proof rests, such as the licence holder/occupier (the SPDC) pursuant to Section 11(5)(c) OPA/Rylands v Fletcher rule. In the context of parent company liability, the burden of proof rests on MD et al. rather than on Shell.

Claim VI: keeping the pipes in a good state of repair

Claim VI is for the issuance of an order to the Shell parent company/companies and subsidiary – as of today (see legal ground 3.8) – to keep the Goi pipeline in a good state of repair, in view of the leak that occurred there in 2004.

It is also relevant in assessing this claim that it has not been established that the 2004 leak at Goi was the result of negligence or unreasonable acts of the SPDC. Its liability for compensation in this context rests on strict liability. Therefore, an unlawful state in respect of Origin cannot be deemed to exist as regards the Goi pipeline. Awarding the claims for injunction, instituted on account of Origin, against the parent company/companies and the subsidiary is therefore not applicable. Claim VI is rejected.

Background and bases

The claims in respect of Response are based on the course of events during and before the period between the report of the leak on 10 October 2004 – which occurred in the territory of the Mogho community, whose territory borders on that of the Goi community – and the definitive plugging of the leak on 13 October 2004.

The following can be said about the events in that period.

a. Following the leak report received by the SPDC on 10 October 2004, the SPDC did not immediately shut down the oil supply. The reason for this established practice of the SPDC is because of the regular occurrence of false and incorrect reports. The SPDC delayed shutting down the oil supply until verifying and confirming the report. The Court understands that due to the unsafe situation, which had existed in Ogoniland since 1993, where the location of leak is situated, the SPDC – at least outside of JIT context, see below under b and d – was unable to verify the leak by visiting that location ‘over land’.

b. On 11 October 2004, the report was confirmed by a helicopter flying over the site of the leak (point 38 DoA). When JIT members wanted to go to that location, they were refused access by young members of the Mogho community (point 38 DoA, not really contested, see inter alia point 299 R). While the negotiations about the access were underway, on 11 October 2004 a fire started in the territory of the Goi community, where the oil had meanwhile spread to. MD et al. refer to it as a ‘huge and devastating fire’ (point 54 WS/1-MD).

c. The parties agree that at least on 11 October 2004 the oil was still gushing out through the hole under great pressure (point 284 R, point 18 Rej and point 359 SoA/2). MD et al. have asserted that on 13 October 2004, the pipe was still under considerable pressure (point 361 SoA/2).

d. On 12 October 2004, the JIT gained permission from the Mogho community to enter the site of the leak (point 40 DoA), after which the pipe was exposed and provisionally repaired that same day. After that, still on 12 October 2004, the remainder of the leaked oil was removed from the excavated hole.

e. Not until 13 October 2004 did the Goi community grant access to the source of the fire. At 14:40 hours on that day, the fire was extinguished. At 16:30 hours, the leak was definitively repaired by applying a sleeve clamp. During the visit of the JIT, the oil present at the site of the leak was cleaned up (point 47 DoA).

f. According to MD et al., the oil supply was not halted until the leak was ‘clamped’ on 13 October 2004 (point 284 R), pointing out that due to the fact that the oil continued to spout from the leak in huge quantities, the pipe had not been depressured (point 126 WS-MD). According to Shell, the oil supply was immediately shut down after verifying the leak report on 11 October 2004 (point 18 Rej), pointing out that the oil supply does not stop immediately when a pipe is closed off, but that it takes a long time for pressure in a pipeline to drop down (point 625 DoA/SoA-cross/2).

g. According to the argument of MD et al., deep ditches should have been dug to contain the leaked oil; this was not carried out, or at least not in time and not adequately (point 127 WS-MD). Shell has disputed this by saying that ‘– when it was enabled by the communities – it sealed the holes in the pipelines (…) and contained the oil’ (point 576 DoA/SoA-cross/2, see also point 138 Rej).

All in all, it took three days for the leak to be plugged. MD et al. believe this is a ‘disproportionate amount of time’ (point 319 SoA/2). During those three days, at least 24,000 litres of crude oil leaked out of the pipe (see legal ground 3.29). According to MD et al., the SPDC had the obligation to do what was necessary to limit the damage ensuing from leaks in its pipes – even if the origin of the leak cannot be attributed to the SPDC (see, inter alia, point 125 WS/2-MD) – as much as possible (points 284 and 369 SoA/2), an obligation which it failed to meet. MD et al. have substantiated their claims in respect of Response with the following concrete, factual statements – hereinafter: Arguments I through to IV (see also, in general, point 370 SoA/2):

I. The SPDC should have shut down the oil supply sooner and should have used a better flow restriction system (see also points 358 and 366 SoA/2 and points 77 and 78 WS/2-MD);

III. The SPDC should have installed a Leak Detection System (LDS), obviating the need for verification of the report (inter alia, point 290 R, point 63 WS/1-MD, points 312, 335 and 336 and point 76 WS/2-MD);

III. The SPDC had no system to detect the fire sooner, and should have ensured, by depressurizing the pipeline, that the fire did not rage for so long (points 339 and 340 SoA/2);

IV. The SPDC should have contained the oil earlier and more adequately (see point 127 WS-MD, already stated in legal ground 6.2.g).

If one or more of these measures had been taken, the harmful effects of the leak could have been prevented, either entirely or to a very large extent, as can be deduced from the statements of MD et al. In other words: the failure to take these measures caused the damage.

The Response claims – as considered by the district court under 4.53 of the judgment and as put forward by Shell (point 71 DoA/1) – cannot be based on Section 11(5) (c) OPA. The tort of negligence (breach of duty of care) and the statutory negligence pursuant to Section 11(5) (b) OPA are – mainly, see also legal ground 6.15 below – eligible for application, also according to MD et al. (points 286, 289 and 370 SoA/2). The Court will assess Arguments I through to IV from the perspective of the tort of negligence, which is more comprehensive than the statutory negligence pursuant to Section 11(5)(b) OPA and which will not lead to other results in the overlapping area. From the considerations of 3.15 and 3.19 it follows that the burden of proof – and thereby the obligation to furnish facts – rests on MD et al.

In points 316-318 SoA/2, MD et al. have provided a summary of points 219-315 of that statement of appeal, containing a discussion of various alleged obligations of the SPDC of a partly procedural nature, including the obligation to draw up an Oil Spill Contingency Plan. Those obligations relate to the measures Shell in general must take in advance according to MD et al. to ensure that it can respond swiftly and adequately to a leak. Except insofar as they also fall under the measures mentioned in legal ground 6.3, the Court fails to see that the alleged failure to take these measures had negative consequences in this specific leak event. Since for this reason alone condition (c), as stated in legal ground 3.19, has not been met a tort of negligence cannot be assumed on that ground.

The access issue

As is apparent from legal ground 6.2, the access issue plays a major role in assessing Arguments I through to IV. Shell invokes the inability to take certain damage-mitigating measures, because it was denied access. In response, MD et al. put forward several statements (mainly points 292-311 IS, points 128-134 WS-MD and points 350-357 SoA/2), which come down to the following. The Niger Delta is a rich source of oil for Shell, but also an extremely poor living area for Nigerians, who are also time and again confronted with the harmful effects of Shell’s activities. They have to live and work in the contaminated area. It determines their life. Among them are people who have grown averse to working with Shell and also people who think they can gain from the situation. This causes tensions with Shell and also within the communities. The relationship between Shell and the communities is very troubled and Shell is to blame for not investing in a good rapport. If it had done so, many access issues could have been prevented, according still to MD et al. It is a harrowing tale MD et al. have presented here, but the Court believes that omitting an act, which Shell was actually unable to carry out due to being denied access, cannot lead to Shell being attributed with breaching a duty of care. The reasons for the access refusal are too vague and not easily directly attributable to Shell. The people denying access always have a moment of choice (cf. point 628 DoA/SoA-cross/2). However, the fact that Shell cannot be reproached for not being able to carry out the actions hindered by the refusal of access does not alter the fact that under certain circumstances it can be reproached for not anticipating, or not anticipating sufficiently, the refusal of access and/or (then) taking insufficient action to circumvent the refusal of access or having it lifted.

In this case, there is the special circumstance that the SPDC has not had regular access to Ogoniland since 1993 (see legal ground 1.1.c), which is where the location of the leak at Goi is situated. Nevertheless, the SPDC continued to use the pipelines running through Ogoniland. The Court believes – as expressed by MD et al. in, inter alia, point 306 IS – that by doing so the SPDC accepted the risk that it would not always have easy access ‘over land’ to the site of a leak, reported or otherwise.

Argument i.: oil supply pipe shut off too late

The – contested – assertion of MD et al. that the oil supply was not shut off until 13 October 2004, meaning too late, has not been proven on the basis of their argument that on 13 October 2004 the pipe had yet not been depressured since Shell has successfully contested this argument with the rebuttal that it takes a while for the pressure to drop. The remark of MD et al. in 352 SoA/2 that the course of events following the leak can only be clarified by hearing witnesses cannot be designated as such an offer to tender evidence by witnesses. Moreover, that remark is not focused on their aforementioned assertion and argument, so that at least it does not furnish a sufficiently specified offer of proof. With this state of affairs, the Court concurs with Shell that the oil supply had actually been shut down on 11 October 2004. Even insofar as Argument I of MD et al. means that the SPDC should have applied a better flow restriction system, because – despite shutting down the oil supply on 11 October 2004 – there was still oil coming from the leak (point 361 SoA/2) and the oil flow had apparently not been closed down effectively (see points 362-364 SoA/2), it fails. After all, MD et al. have not explained, let alone proven, how any remaining pressure could have been dropped quicker following the shut-off on 11 October 2004.

In point 284 R, MD et al. have however also argued that since the SPDC employed a helicopter, the leak could have been verified sooner than on 11 October 2004, namely immediately after the occurrence of the leak on 10 October 2004. On appeal, MD et al. have reiterated this (point 334 SoA/2).

The starting point for the assessment of this assertion of MD et al. is that it has been established that false reports of oil leaks occur frequently and that on this basis alone it is therefore justified – apparently also in the eyes of MD et al. (point 125 WS-MD) – to not shut down the oil supply until a leak report has been verified. The following is also considered in response to that assertion.

In point 617 DoA/2, Shell underlined that the SPDC monitors the situation with helicopter flights. Its defence (in point 619 DoA/2), that a leak cannot always be verified from a helicopter, does not apply in this case of oil spouting up from a leak (on 11 October, and therefore also immediately after the occurrence of the leak on 10 October 2004). The SPDC saw reason to send a helicopter to the site of the leak on 11 October 2004, apparently to verify the report it had received about a spouting oil leak. Without a further explanation by Shell – which is lacking – the Court fails to see how the SPDC could not have done so one day earlier. In point 291 SoA/2, MD et al. have pointed out the recommendation on p. 152 of the 2002 EGASPIN that the ‘operator shall take prompt (…) steps to contain (…) the spill’. This recommendation, reflecting the opinion of the relevant circles, is so concrete that it may serve to particularize a duty of care (see also legal ground 7.8 below). This also applies to Article 25 of the Petroleum (Drilling and Production) Regulations, which contains a similar obligation for the operator (see point 296 SoA/2). Also in view of the considerations in 6.7, under the stated circumstances – and assuming the justification of the SPDC’s verification wish – the SPDC could reasonably be expected to send a helicopter to the reported location of the leak immediately after receiving a report in order to verify the report, thereby circumventing the restriction on verification caused by the access refusal. If it had done so, the leak, from which oil was spouting with great force, would have been confirmed shortly after the report. Considering this state of affairs, it is fair, just and reasonable to assume that the SPDC had a duty of care to shut down the oil supply shortly after the report, even on 10 October 2004, also considering that the proximity requirement has been met in respect of the persons living and working near the leaks (Barizaa Dooh and the other residents), and damage/considerable damage for these persons was absolutely foreseeable if the oil supply was not shut off within a short period of time. This means that the three factors of the Caparo test for the existence of a duty of care have been met. The SPDC breached this duty of care, as a result of which damage occurred. The conclusion must be that the SPDC committed a tort of negligence by not shutting off the oil supply on 10 October 2004, but later on 11 October 2004. To this extent alone, Argument I succeeds.

Argument II: LDS

A Leak Detection System (LDS) is a system with which a leak can be detected quickly, quickly/in real time – within ‘minutes to hours’ – without access to the location of the leak being required. This could include a pressure measuring system which involves installing sensors at different places on the pipeline and in which a data system measures the pressure, sending the readings to a control centre where they are monitored at least every hour (point 335 SoA/2). With an LDS the same could have been achieved as with the helicopter inspection the SPDC should have carried out, but did not carry out, on 10 October 2004, namely that shortly after the leak on 10 October 2004, the leak could have been confirmed, immediately followed by a shutdown of the oil supply. In this sense, Argument II merges with Argument I, thereby lacking independent significance.

Argument III: the fire

As asserted by Shell, and not contested by MD et al., it has been established that the Goi community did not allow the SPDC access to the site of the fire until 13 October 2004, after which the fire was extinguished. Considering this access refusal, the SPDC could not have extinguished the fire sooner if it had had a system that could have detected the fire earlier, and at any rate could have not extinguished the fire sooner. Argument III fails for this reasons, also considering that the access refusal cannot be alleged against the SPDC (see legal ground 6.6) and that the SPDC cannot be reproached for not lowering the pressure earlier (see legal ground 6.8).

Argument IV: the containment

The concise assertions of MD et al. about containment have been contested by Shell just as succinctly. Since on MD et al. rest the obligation to furnish facts and the burden of proof, this works to their disadvantage, meaning that Argument IV is disregarded on account of insufficient substantiation.

Conclusion on claims I and III.a-a in respect of Response

In connection with Arguments III and IV it is considered that the torts of nuisance and trespass to chattel cannot help MD et al., because the acts/omissions alleged against the SPDC in these arguments cannot be designated as unreasonable or negligent, respectively, in light of the considerations in 6.13 and 6.14. In connection with Argument IV, the strict liability rule of Rylands v Fletcher can also not help MD et al. since although it could be said that the oil that ended up on the SPDC’s right of way due to the leak subsequently flowed onto the adjacent grounds from that right of way – because it was not immediately contained – it cannot be said that the SPDC placed that leaked oil on the right of way ‘for his own purposes’ meaning that this application condition of the rule has not been met (see legal ground 3.22).

It follows from the foregoing that claims I and III.a-a in respect of Response against the SPDC are only eligible for allowing insofar as they pertain to shutting down the oil supply one day too late.

It must be noted here that there is a difference between the above-described award of claims I and III.a-a in respect of Response and the award of these claims in respect of Origin as described in legal ground 5.27. In the latter case, the claims are allowed based on the OPA, so that the damage assessment must also be based on this act – more specifically, Section 20(2) OPA. The first-named claims are allowed based on common law, so that the damage must be based on common law.

Shell has contested, stating reasons, that the then parent companies were aware/had been made aware of the leak of 10 October 2004. Against this, MD et al. failed to assert, stating reasons, and failed to tender evidence that those parent companies knew or should have known that the SPDC did not shut down the oil supply until 11 October 2004. Claims I and III.a-a against the parent companies are not allowable for not meeting the knowledge requirement set out in legal ground 3.29 alone.

Claim VII: order in respect of Response

Claim for injunction VII in respect of Response consists of two parts. Part one is for the implementation of an adequate plan for a response to oil leaks. This part links up with the description of MD et al. in point 104 et seq. IS on the so-called Oil Spill Contingency Plan and is directed only against the SPDC as the operator that must implement such a plan. According to Shell, this obligation has been met (inter alia, in points 30 and 134 (WS-S), and MD et al. have failed to prove that this is not the case. Part two is directed against the SPDC and the Shell parent companies, and entails that they have to ensure that all conditions for a ‘timely and adequate response’ have been met in case another oil leak occurs at Goi.

The Court recalls that a claim for injunction must be assessed according to the current situation (see legal ground 3.6) and with due observance of the standards mentioned in legal ground 3.14.

In points 7 and 64 of their PA/1-MD WS/1-MD of 12 March 2015, MD et al. have put forward that Shell will replace the Goi pipeline and will install a fibre-optic sensing technology, with which leaks and sabotage attempts can be detected early and remotely. In point 159 SoA/2 of 12 March 2019, they noted that the pipeline has since been replaced, but not stating that the detection technology has not been applied. According to MD et al., a facility has been installed, sufficiently ensuring a ‘timely and adequate response’ in case of a new leak. Therefore, there is no room for an order in line with the second part, not against the SPDC and not against the parent companies. Claim VII is rejected.

Preliminary considerations

Shell believes that a violation of the fundamental right to a clean living environment at most could lead to civil liability in the case of ‘severe’ environmental pollution (point 765 DoA/2). It implies that in Shell’s view this also applies to the fundamental rights invoked by MD et al. of that content in the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. MD et al. have based their reliance on the assertion that their living environment is ‘severely’ contaminated (point 737 SoA/2). The Court will start from the common starting point, which is in line with the general opinion about the threshold that must be set in order to be able to designate a violation of fundamental rights for the protection of the environment, see for instance ECtHR, 9 December 1994, A303-C, NJ 1996, 506 (López Ostra/Spain), in which the requirement of severe environmental pollution was set.

The Court will now assess the fundamental rights claims II and III.b of MD et al. based on the three themes referred to in legal ground 3.6, namely Origin, Response and Decontamination (see also legal ground 3.10). From legal ground 3.15 it follows that MD et al. have the burden of proof – and consequently also the obligation to furnish facts – for the facts on which the fundamental rights violation they allege are based.

The contamination caused by the leak can undoubtedly be qualified as serious, but in connection with Origin, a violation by Shell of the right to a clean living environment (see claim III.a) or liability for its impairment (see claim II) nevertheless cannot be assumed because, in view of the considerations in 5.29, 5.30 and 5.33, it cannot be established that the leak was caused by a (culpable) act or negligence on the part of the SPDC/Shell.

The only element of the theme Response which has led to the opinion that the SPDC/Shell has committed culpable acts/negligence, and which may qualify as a ‘fundamental right violation/interference’ is that the oil supply was not shut down immediately on 10 October 2004. However, MD et al. have failed to assert (sufficiently) concretely that this omission on the part of the SPDC/Shell – or not applying an LDS (see legal ground 6.12) – constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to a clean living environment. Considering this state of affairs, it cannot be concluded that this fundamental right was violated in connection with Response.

From the considerations in 7.14 through to 7.32 it follows that it has not been established that following the decontamination process there was severe residual pollution, required in this context as is apparent from legal ground 8.1, mainly because the contamination due to the 2004 leak was decontaminated below the intervention value. The Court also notes that in Article 8.1.1, second sentence of Part VIII F of the EGASPIN (‘Concentrations in excess of the intervention values correspond to serious contamination’) it is confirmed that contamination is deemed severe only when the intervention value is exceeded. Therefore, a violation of the fundamental right to a clean living environment in connection with Decontamination can also not be assumed.

Claims II and III.b based on the violation of the fundamental right to a clean living environment are not allowable, as follows from the foregoing. It needs no consideration whether or not under Nigerian law a violation of a fundamental right may constitute an independent basis for civil liability, as argued by MD et al. but contested by Shell.

Claim III.a-b was instituted by MD for the Goi community, and this also applies to claims for injunction IV through to VII, assessed above, and which were also instituted by Dooh. As has been considered in legal ground 3.8, the declaratory decision claimed with III.a-b also covers the area of the claims for injunction. Claim III.a-b simply seeks those claims for injunction and shares in their fate, in all respects. MD therefore has no interest in a separate assessment of claim III.a-b. That claim is denied.

The extrajudicial costs that were allegedly incurred in connection with the elements of claims I and III.a-a, which are to be allowed, cannot be estimated right away, also considering the defence of Shell (not provided on appeal) that Nigerian law does not provide for that (points 136-138 WS-S). This loss item could be brought up for further assessment in the follow-up proceedings for the determination of damages (claim I) or in any compensation proceedings for which claim III.a-a serves as a prelude. To this extent, claim IX for the compensation of the extrajudicial costs is not allowable (at present). The procedural documents contain no indications that extrajudicial acts were committed in connection with the late shutting down of the oil supply. Insofar as claim IX is for this effect, it is denied for this reason.

In the foregoing, the JIT report, the Clean- Up certificates were included in the assessment, not to the detriment of MD et al. Their assertions about the extent of the contamination therefore need no further assessment – see legal ground 3.32.

In addition to that which has been stated above about the parties’ offers of proof, the following is considered. The offers of proof of MD et al. (see, inter alia points 851 and 852 SoA/2) were either insufficiently specified, not relevant or were submitted for assertions lacking in sufficient substantiation, and are therefore disregarded. The same applies to the offers of proof Shell made in point 179 SoA-cross/1, point 296 DoA/1 and point 936 DoA/2 for the assertions for which it has the burden of proof. The offers of Shell of rebutting evidence in the same points are not relevant (inter alia, the tender of evidence in point 532 DoA/SoA-cross/2) and/or pertain to insufficiently substantiated assertions. Therefore, these offers are disregarded. In addition to this, the offer of rebutting evidence – unlike with the ‘regular’ offer of proof – was not accompanied with the statement that evidence of witnesses could be provided. This means that as regards the rebutting evidence, there is no right to the provision of evidence (Section 166 subsection 1 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure).

To sum up, also considering the 2015 ruling, the Dutch court is competent to take full cognizance of cases c and d, and claims I and III.a- in respect of Origin and in respect of Response, insofar as they concern the late shutting down the oil supply, are allowable against the SPDC. To this extent, the grounds of appeal in the principal appeal of MD et al. succeed. In all other respects, the claims of MD et al. are not allowable and their grounds of appeal in the principal appeal fail. Shell’s grounds of appeal in the cross-appeal, with which it contested the competence of the Dutch court and the locus standi of MD et al. fail. The contested judgment is quashed and a decision will be made as stated above.

At any rate with a view to the payment of the costs of the proceedings, cases c and d can be considered as one case. In this particular case, both parties were partially unsuccessful. The costs incurred in both instances will therefore be compensated in such manner as described in the operative part.

The costs of the experts (€ 44,840.18 and £ 17,000) are for one part allocated to case a, and for the other part to case c. The amounts allocated to case c are therefore € 22,420.09 and £ 8,500.00. Since the SPDC failed on the issue to which the experts’ report pertained, it shall bear these costs.

DECISION

The Court of Appeal:

in cases c and d

- overturns the judgment given between the parties by The Hague District Court on 30 January 2013, and in a new ruling:

* rules that the SPDC with respect to Dooh and the other local residents whose interests MD seeks to protect i) has strict liability for the damage resulting from the leak at Goi on 10 October 2004 and ii) acted unlawfully by not shutting down the oil supply in the Goi pipeline on 10 October 2004, and orders the SPDC to compensate Dooh for the damage ensuing from i) and ii), to be assessed later during separate follow-up proceedings and settled according to the law;

* dismisses all other applications;

* compensates the costs of the proceedings in the first instance thusly that each of the parties bears their respective costs;

- dismisses all other applications (submitted for the first time on appeal);

- compensates the costs of the proceedings on appeal thusly that each of the parties bears their respective costs;

- determines that the SPDC bears the costs of the experts allocated to case c in the amounts of € 22,420.09 and £ 8,500.00;

- declares this ruling provisionally enforceable as far as possible.

This ruling was issued by judges mrs. J.M. van der Klooster, M.Y. Bonneur and S.J. Schaafsma and pronounced in open court at the hearing of 29 January 2021, in the presence of the court clerk, mr. M.J. Boon.

Afdeling civiel recht

Zaaknummers : 200.126.843 (zaak c) + 200.126.848 (zaak d)

Zaak-/rolnummers rechtbank : C/09/337058 / HA ZA 09-1581 (zaak c) +

C/09/365482 / HA ZA 10-1665 (zaak d)

1. Eric Barizaa DOOH,

wonende te Goi, Rivers State, Federale Republiek Nigeria,

2. VERENIGING MILIEUDEFENSIE,

gevestigd te Amsterdam,

appellanten in principaal appel, tevens geïntimeerden in incidenteel appel, tevens eisers in het art. 843a Rv-incident en verweerders in het bevoegdheidsincident,

advocaat: mr. Ch. Samkalden (Amsterdam),

tegen (zaak c - 200.126.843)

1. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC.,

gevestigd te Londen, Verenigd Koninkrijk, kantoorhoudende te Den Haag,

2. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LTD.,

gevestigd te Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Federale Republiek Nigeria,

geïntimeerden in principaal appel, tevens appellanten in incidenteel appel, tevens verweersters in het art. 843a Rv-incident en eiseressen in het bevoegdheidsincident,

advocaat: mr. J. de Bie Leuveling Tjeenk (Amsterdam),

en tegen (zaak d - 200.126.848)

1. SHELL PETROLEUM N.V.,

gevestigd te Den Haag,

2. THE ‘SHELL’ TRANSPORT AND TRADING COMPANY LTD.,

gevestigd te Londen, Verenigd Koninkrijk,

geïntimeerden in principaal appel, tevens appellanten in incidenteel appel, tevens verweersters in het art. 843a Rv-incident,

advocaat: mr. J. de Bie Leuveling Tjeenk (Amsterdam).

Partijen ter ener zijde worden hierna genoemd: Eric Dooh en Milieudefensie, samen: Milieudefensie c.s.; partijen ter andere zijde: RDS, SPDC, Shell Petroleum en Shell T&T, samen: Shell. RDS en SPDC tezamen worden veelal RDS c.s. genoemd. RDS, Shell Petroleum en Shell T&T worden zowel tezamen als afzonderlijk ook wel aangeduid als ‘de moedervennootschap’.

zaak c - 200.126.843

Milieudefensie c.s. heeft deze zaak tegen RDS c.s. aanhangig gemaakt op basis van op 1 mei 2013 uitgebrachte appeldagvaardingen, waarin zij stelt in hoger beroep te komen van het door de Rechtbank Den Haag tussen haar en RDS c.s. gewezen vonnis van 30 januari 2013 en het daaraan voorafgegane tussenvonnis van 14 september 2011. Op de eerst dienende dag - 21 mei 2013 - is verstek verleend tegen RDS c.s. Nadat Milieudefensie c.s. vervolgens op 31 mei 2013 een oproepingsexploot aan RDS c.s. had doen betekenen is RDS c.s. alsnog in het geding verschenen.

zaak d - 200.126.848

Milieudefensie c.s. is bij exploten van 1 mei 2013 in hoger beroep gekomen van het door de Rechtbank Den Haag tussen haar en Shell Petroleum en Shell T&T gewezen vonnis van 30 januari 2013 en het daaraan voorafgegane tussenvonnis van 14 september 2011.

in beide zaken voorts:

Op de rol zijn de volgende stukken gewisseld:

- een incidentele conclusie tot exhibitie (met producties) van Milieudefensie c.s.;

- een memorie van antwoord in het incident ex art. 843a Rv tevens houdende exceptie van

onbevoegdheid in het incident (in zaak c, toev. Hof) (met producties) van Shell;

- een memorie van antwoord in het bevoegdheidsincident in het incident ex art. 843a Rv van

Milieudefensie c.s.

Vervolgens is een comparitie van partijen gehouden in deze en in vier samenhangende zaken. Die vier samenhangende zaken zijn aangeduid als zaak a (200.126.804), zaak b (200.126.834), zaak e (200.126.849) en zaak f (200.127.813). Op deze comparitie zijn procedureafspraken gemaakt, die voor zover thans van belang inhouden dat allereerst (‘fase 1’) een beslissing zal worden genomen over (i) de bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter (voor zover in geschil), (ii) het al dan niet ontbreken van geldige appeldagvaardingen in zaak (c), en (iii) de vorderingen van Milieudefensie c.s. ex art. 843a Rv (met inbegrip van het appel van Milieudefensie c.s. tegen het tussenvonnis van 14 september 2011, waarin haar toenmalige vordering ex art. 843a Rv grotendeels is afgewezen), alsmede de door Shell daartegen gevoerde verweren, waaronder die met betrekking tot (iv) de ontvankelijkheid van Milieudefensie en (v) de ontvankelijkheid c.q. vorderingsgerechtigheid van Eric Dooh. Overeenkomstig de ter comparitie gemaakte afspraken zijn vervolgens op de rol ingediend:

- door Shell: een memorie van grieven fase 1 (in zaak f) tevens memorie van grieven

in incidenteel appel fase 1 (in zaken a tot en met e) (met producties);

- door Milieudefensie c.s.: een memorie van grieven inzake de afwijzing van de

vordering tot exhibitie ex art. 843a Rv (met producties);

- door Milieudefensie c.s. in zaak c: een akte uitlating (appeldagvaarding) (met

productie);

- door Shell: een memorie van antwoord fase 1 (in zaken a tot en met e), tevens

memorie van antwoord in incidenteel appel fase 1 (in zaak f), tevens antwoordakte uitlating

appeldagvaarding (in zaak c) (met producties, waaronder als productie 53 een akte van depot

van stukken);

- door Milieudefensie c.s.: een memorie van antwoord bij de memorie van grieven

zijdens Shell (fase 1) (met producties).

Daarna hebben de advocaten van partijen - in fase 1 - alle zaken aan de hand van pleitnotities bepleit. Bij die gelegenheid zijn door Shell producties in het geding gebracht (productie 54 in de zaken a tot en met d en productie 55 in de zaken c en d) en heeft de advocaat van Milieudefensie c.s. enkele afdrukken van foto’s overgelegd. Na afloop van de pleidooien is een datum voor arrest bepaald.

inleiding

Aanleiding tot het geschil is een olielekkage uit een gat in een ondergrondse 24 inch oliepijpleiding bij het dorp Goi in Ogoniland, in de deelstaat Rivers State van de Federale Republiek Nigeria. Naar schatting is er een hoeveelheid van ca. 150 vaten (barrels) olie door dat gat gelekt, waarna ter plaatse ook nog een oliebrand heeft gewoed. Milieudefensie c.s. wijt de lekkage en de daardoor ontstane schade - meer concreet: (milieu)schade aan door (de vader van) Eric Dooh ter plaatse geëxploiteerde visvijvers en landbouwgronden - aan onrechtmatig handelen en nalaten van (i) SPDC als operator van de pijpleiding, maar daarnaast ook van (ii) RDS als hoofd van de Shell-groep en via concernvennootschappen houdster van de aandelen in SPDC en van (iii) Shell Petroleum en Shell T&T, die voorheen tezamen deze rol van moedermaatschappij/middellijk aandeelhouder vervulden. De vorderingen die Milieudefensie c.s. op deze grond heeft ingesteld strekken er toe dat Shell aansprakelijk wordt gehouden voor de (gevolg)schade en wordt geboden om de bodem- en watervervuiling ongedaan te maken en voorzieningen te treffen ter voorkoming van nieuwe lekkages en milieuschades. De rechtbank wees alle vorderingen af, daarbij als uitgangspunt nemend dat de lekkage het gevolg is van sabotage - in de vorm van een 46 cm lange zaagsnede aan de bovenzijde van de pijpleiding tussen de 10 en de 2 uur positie - en niet, zoals Milieudefensie c.s. primair stelt, van onvoldoende onderhoud (corrosie). Tegen die afwijzing en de onderliggende motivering richt zich het hoger beroep.

In dit tussenarrest worden, zoals ter comparitie met partijen besproken, alleen enkele deelaspecten van het geschil beoordeeld, te weten: (i) het hernieuwde exhibitieverzoek ex art. 843a Rv van Milieudefensie c.s.; (ii) de grieven tegen de (motivering van de) afwijzing van haar eerdere verzoek dienaangaande; (iii) de tegen die verzoeken door Shell gevoerde verweren en (iv) Shells grieven tegen de verwerping van een aantal van die verweren door de rechtbank. Laatstbedoelde verweren, die zich mede richten tegen de vorderingen in de hoofdzaken, gaan over de internationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter, de ontvankelijkheid van Milieudefensie en de ontvankelijkheid en vorderingsgerechtigdheid van Eric Dooh. Een ander (processueel) punt, dat Shell in hoger beroep aan de orde heeft gesteld, betreft de geldigheid van de appeldagvaardingen in zaak c. Dat punt wordt hierna als eerste besproken, vervolgens de andere verweren en tot slot de vordering ex art. 843a Rv. De beoordeling in dit arrest betreft dus de over en weer opgeworpen incidenten, maar heeft daarnaast ook betrekking op enkele aspecten die van belang zijn in de hoofdzaken.

Vooraf wordt genoteerd dat tussen partijen thans eenstemmigheid bestaat over het toepasselijke recht, in die zin dat de vorderingen, ook die tegen de moedervennootschap, moeten worden beoordeeld naar Nigeriaans recht, zijnde het recht van de staat waar (i) de lekkage zich heeft voorgedaan, (ii) de daarmee samenhangende schade zich heeft gemanifesteerd en (iii) SPDC, op wier doen en laten onvoldoende toezicht zou zijn gehouden, gevestigd is (vgl. het hier toepasselijke art. 3 Wet conflictenrecht onrechtmatige daad). In overeenstemming hiermee wordt in dit arrest uitgegaan van de toepasselijkheid van Nigeriaans recht. Een uitzondering - ook daarover zijn partijen het eens - geldt voor de procesrechtelijke kwesties, waarop Nederlands recht als lex fori van toepassing is (vgl. art. 10:3 BW). Bij enkele aspecten, zoals de wisseling van de concernleiding, is daarnaast het toepasselijke incorporatierecht van belang.

Een tweede overweging vooraf is dat de rechtbank de door Milieudefensie c.s. tevens genoemde lekkage(s) uit 2003 buiten beschouwing heeft gelaten en - ook in het kader van de vordering ex art. 843a Rv - alleen heeft geoordeeld over de hiervoor onder 1.1 bedoelde lekkage, die zich op 10 oktober 2004 openbaarde. Hoewel Milieudefensie c.s. daar in het kader van haar 3e grief bezwaar tegen lijkt te maken, is zij, na Shells reactie op die grief, bij gelegenheid van het nadien gehouden pleidooi hier niet meer op teruggekomen en heeft zij toen zonder voorbehoud gesteld - bij haar schets van de achtergrond van het geschil - dat de lekkage aan de pijpleiding bij Goi in 2004 optrad, wat weer aansluit bij haar eerdere stelling dat het in deze zaken gaat ‘om een olielekkage aan een pijpleiding van SPDC bij het dorp Goi in Nigeria.’ Net als in de eerste aanleg wordt er in dit stadium van het geding daarom van uit gegaan dat het geschil betrekking heeft op de lekkage van 10 oktober 2004.

de geldigheid van de appeldagvaardingen in zaak c

In zaak c (nr. 200.126.843) is eindvonnis gewezen op 30 januari 2013, evenals in

zaak d (200.126.848) en in de samenhangende zaken a (200.126.804), b (200.126.834),

e (200.126.849) en f (200.127.813). De laatste dag van de appeltermijn in al deze zaken was derhalve 1 mei 2013 (art. 339 lid 1 Rv juncto artt. 1 lid 1 en 3 lid 1 Algemene termijnenwet). Die dag heeft SPDC - op de wijze als bedoeld in art. 63 Rv - een appeldagvaarding doen betekenen in zaak f en zijn door een (toegevoegd kandidaat-gerechts)deurwaarder ten verzoeke van Milieudefensie c.s. op gelijke wijze tien afschriften van appelexploten uitgebracht aan het kantooradres van de advocaat van Shell. Volgens Shell ging het daarbij om:

- twee appelexploten in zaak a (200.126.804);

- vier appelexploten in zaak b (200.126.834);

- twee appelexploten in zaak d (200.126.848);

- twee appelexploten in zaak e (200.126.849).

In deze, in totaal tien appelexploten wordt gedagvaard tegen 21 mei 2013. De advocaat van Shell heeft zich op laatstgenoemde datum gesteld in de zaken a, b, d en e, maar niet in zaak c, om reden dat daarin volgens Shell geen appeldagvaarding was ontvangen. Toch was deze zaak c aan de hand van een - door de deurwaarder na het uitbrengen van de tien appelexploten opgemaakt en aan Milieudefensie c.s. verstrekt - origineel exemplaar van de appeldagvaarding ter rolle ingeschreven, reden waarom daarin verstek is verleend tegen RDS c.s. Na die verstekverlening heeft Milieudefensie c.s. RDS c.s. bij exploot van 31 mei 2013 - met aangehecht (een kopie van) het aan Milieudefensie verstrekte originele exemplaar van de appeldagvaarding van 1 mei 2013 en onder uitdrukkelijke instandhouding van die dagvaarding - opgeroepen om alsnog in de procedure te verschijnen. RDS c.s. is toen ook verschenen, maar heeft vervolgens wel als primair standpunt ingenomen dat de appeldagvaarding in zaak c niet tijdig is uitgebracht en dat het hoger beroep in die zaak dus niet is aangevangen (art. 343 Rv). Daarbij wijst zij erop dat op haar klagen door de Kamer voor Gerechtsdeurwaarders te Amsterdam een tuchtrechtelijke maatregel is opgelegd aan de deurwaarder, met als voorafgaande overweging: ‘Het afgeven van het origineel van het exploot door de deurwaarder aan zijn opdrachtgever, in welk exploot is vermeld dat daarvan afschrift is achtergelaten aan de in het exploot genoemde persoon, terwijl niet vaststaat dat dit afschrift aan deze persoon is afgegeven, is een ernstig tuchtrechtelijk vergrijp. In het rechtsverkeer moet er op kunnen worden vertrouwd dat hetgeen de gerechtsdeurwaarder binnen de kring van zijn bevoegdheid in het exploot verklaart, zonder twijfel juist is. Nu dit niet het geval is, zal ten aanzien van [de deurwaarder, opm. Hof] worden beslist zoals hierna wordt vermeld.’ RDS c.s. wijst er voorts op dat de wettelijk vastgelegde appeltermijn van openbare orde is.

Het laatste is ontegenzeggelijk juist. Onjuist is echter dat er niet binnen de appeltermijn is gedagvaard. Dit wordt als volgt toegelicht.

- Uitgaande van de lezing van RDS c.s. zijn in zaak b, met (slechts) twee geïntimeerden, vier aparte appelexploten betekend.

- RDS c.s. weerspreekt niet dat dit ongebruikelijk is.

- De betekening vond bovendien ex art. 63 Rv plaats ten kantore van de advocaat, welk kantoor een speciale afdeling heeft die de roladministratie voert, alwaar volgens RDS c.s. de bijzonderheid - dat van de tien betekende exploten er, naar de letter, vier zaak b betroffen en niet één zaak c - meteen is opgemerkt, zonder dat dit heeft geleid tot een verzoek om opheldering aan het deurwaarderskantoor, Milieudefensie c.s. of haar advocaat.

- Er is geen aannemelijke verklaring waarom Milieudefensie van alle afwijzingen, in het bijzonder ook van die in de zaken d en e, in hoger beroep zou willen komen, behalve van die in (de nauw met zaak d samenhangende) zaak c.

- Ook blijkt niet dat RDS c.s. niettemin wel in de veronderstelling heeft verkeerd dat Milieudefensie c.s. had afgezien van appel in zaak c. Toegevoegd wordt, maar geheel terzijde, dat er veeleer een aanwijzing is voor het tegendeel, dat wil zeggen dat RDS c.s. in de veronderstelling verkeerde dat er wèl was geappelleerd, dus ook in zaak c. Milieudefensie c.s. heeft immers gewezen op de mededeling die daags na het uitbrengen van de appeldagvaardingen op de website van Shell verscheen onder de kop: ‘Reactie van Mutiu Sunmonu’, met onderschrift: ‘Reactie van Mutiu Sunmonu (Managing Director, SPDC) op beroep dat drie Nigeriaanse boeren, samen met Milieudefensie, hebben aangetekend in rechtszaken tegen Shell die ze in januari hadden verloren.’ De daaronder staande reactie houdt onder meer in: ‘Wij zijn teleurgesteld dat Milieudefensie heeft besloten om tegen de uitspraak in beroep te gaan. [..] Wij gaan nu de aanname door de rechtbank van internationale bevoegdheid inzake de vorderingen tegen SPDC aanvechten. [..] Wij zijn van oordeel dat aantijgingen van Nigeriaanse eisers die een geschil met een Nigeriaans bedrijf hebben over zaken die in Nigeria hebben plaatsgevonden, in Nigeria aan de rechter moeten worden voorgelegd.’ Bij lezing van dit bericht dient te worden bedacht dat van de in totaal vier Nigeriaanse eisers in de samenhangende zaken a tot en met f er slechts één was, te weten F.A. Akpan, die een rechtszaak tegen Shell, meer precies: SPDC, op onderdelen ‘gewonnen’ had en die niet in appel was gegaan, waardoor aannemelijk is dat met de ‘drie Nigeriaanse boeren’ die rechtszaken tegen Shell, met inbegrip van SPDC, hadden verloren bedoeld zijn: F.A. Oguru, A. Efanga (de Nigeriaanse eisers in de zaken a en b) en Eric Dooh (de Nigeriaanse eiser in de zaken c en d). Daarvan uitgaande ligt niet voor de hand dat de managing director van SPDC teleurgesteld zou reageren op het beroep dat ‘drie Nigeriaanse boeren’ hadden aangetekend, indien SPDC in de veronderstelling verkeerde dat één van die ‘drie Nigeriaanse boeren’, te weten Eric Dooh, had afgezien van het instellen van hoger beroep tegen de afwijzing van de tegen SPDC (en RDS) gerichte vorderingen in zaak c (de vorderingen in zaak d zijn niet tegen SPDC gericht).

Voormelde feiten en omstandigheden laten redelijkerwijs geen andere conclusie toe dan dat van de vier gelijkluidende appelexploten van 1 mei 2013 er twee kennelijk bedoeld waren als appeldagvaardingen in zaak c, doch dat de deurwaarder per abuis twee (extra) afschriften van tegelijkertijd uitgebrachte exploten in zaak d heeft achtergelaten. In zoverre moet dit geval op één lijn worden gesteld met en beoordeeld worden als het geval dat twee van de dagvaardingen een verschrijving bevatten, in die zin dat daarin per abuis de namen van de appellanten uit zaak b zijn genoemd, in plaats van die uit zaak c, en zo ook abusievelijk het rol-/ zaaknummer van de vonnissen uit zaak b is vermeld, in plaats van dat uit zaak c. Omdat het hier om een - ook voor RDS c.s. als zodanig kenbare - kennelijke vergissing gaat, moet het ervoor gehouden worden dat RDS c.s. wist of redelijkerwijs heeft moeten weten dat Milieudefensie c.s. op 1 mei 2013, derhalve binnen de appeltermijn, ook in zaak c het rechtsmiddel van hoger beroep heeft willen instellen (vgl. HR 7 juli 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1844). Dat RDS c.s. door deze vergissing - of het herstel ervan, zoals dat in het oproepingsexploot van 31 mei 2013 besloten ligt - onredelijk in haar belangen is geschaad, is gesteld noch gebleken. Daarbij is tevens van belang dat Milieudefensie c.s., naar zij onweersproken heeft gesteld, eerst na de rolzitting van 21 mei 2013 op de hoogte is geraakt van het standpunt van Shell dat in zaak c geen appeldagvaarding zou zijn uitgebracht, zodat het oproepingsexploot in ieder geval binnen 14 dagen na deze ontdekking is uitgebracht. Voor een nietigverklaring van de appelexploten bestaat dan ook geen goede grond, net zo min als voor een niet-ontvankelijkverklaring van Milieudefensie c.s. wegens een vermeend gebrek aan geldige appelexploten. Een andere conclusie zou er bovendien toe leiden dat, als gevolg van een vergissing van de door Milieudefensie c.s. ingeschakelde gerechtsdeurwaarder, het recht op toegang tot de appelrechter in de kern wordt aangetast.

bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter m.b.t. de vorderingen tegen SPDC

De rechtbank heeft haar internationale bevoegdheid met betrekking tot de vorderingen tegen de in Nigeria gevestigde vennootschap SPDC ontleend aan art. 7 lid 1 Rv (pluraliteit van gedaagden). Uitgaande van de niet ter discussie staande bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter ten aanzien van medegedaagde RDS (ex art. 2 lid 1 juncto art. 60 lid 1 Verordening (EG) Nr. 44/2001 betreffende de rechterlijke bevoegdheid, de erkenning en de tenuitvoerlegging van beslissingen in burgerlijke en handelszaken, hierna: Brussel I-Verordening) bestaat deze bevoegdheid volgens die bepaling (art. 7 lid 1 Rv) ook ten aanzien van SPDC ‘mits tussen de vorderingen tegen de onderscheiden gedaagden een zodanige samenhang bestaat, dat redenen van doelmatigheid een gezamenlijke behandeling rechtvaardigen’. De rechtbank achtte die samenhang aanwezig, in weerwil van de betwisting ervan door SPDC. Andere, door de rechtbank eveneens verworpen, tegenwerpingen van SPDC in dit verband waren kort gezegd dat Milieudefensie c.s. misbruik van procesrecht maakt - omdat de vorderingen tegen RDS evident kansloos zijn en om die reden niet kunnen dienen als basis voor bevoegdheid als voorzien in art. 7 lid 1 Rv - en (naar analogie van het arrest HvJ EU 1 december 2011, C-145/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798 Painer) dat de vorderingen tegen de onderscheiden gedaagden verschillende rechtsgrondslagen hebben, terwijl voor SPDC niet voorzienbaar was dat zij hier te lande zou worden opgeroepen.

In hoger beroep herhaalt SPDC weliswaar al deze tegenwerpingen, maar concludeert zij uiteindelijk dat de toets die moet worden aangelegd is of er een mogelijkheid bestaat dat de vorderingen tegen RDS worden toegewezen, welke mogelijkheid er volgens haar niet is, reeds omdat de lekkage (van 10 oktober 2004) plaatshad voordat RDS op 20 juli 2005 aan het hoofd van de Shell-groep kwam te staan. Die omstandigheid maakt echter niet dat al op voorhand valt uit te sluiten dat RDS kan worden aangesproken voor de gevolgen van een falen van een voorgaande concernleiding en/of dat op haar een verplichting kan rusten met het oog op het voorkomen van nieuwe lekkages en het opruimen van een nog bestaande vervuiling. Ook is er nog de door de rechtbank in het midden gelaten stelling van Milieudefensie c.s. dat de samenvoeging/fusie van Shell Petroleum en Shell T&T onder de paraplu van de nieuwe moedervennootschap RDS - het éénwordingsproces, dat op het eerste gezicht gelijkenis vertoont met de driehoeksfusie naar Nederlands recht, vgl. art. 2:309 juncto art. 333a BW - vooral een ‘papieren transitie’ betreft, waarvan RDS thans misbruik maakt om zo onder aansprakelijkheid uit te komen. Die, mede aan de hand van het toepasselijke incorporatierecht te beoordelen, stelling, voor zover in hoger beroep niet prijsgegeven, vraagt om een nader (feiten)onderzoek, dat thans nog niet aan de orde is. En wat de door SPDC bedoelde toets betreft (hiervoor genoemd in de eerste zin van 3.2), geldt dat die besloten ligt in het samenhangvereiste zoals art. 7 lid 1 Rv dat stelt. Want als al op voorhand duidelijk is dat de vorderingen tegen RDS (de zogenoemde ‘ankervorderingen’) evident kansloos en om die reden onmogelijk toewijsbaar zijn, is slecht voorstelbaar dat redenen van doelmatigheid niettemin een gezamenlijke behandeling rechtvaardigen. Dit geval van ‘evidente kansloosheid’ doet zich evenwel niet voor, nu niet al op voorhand valt uit te sluiten dat op een moedervennootschap onder omstandigheden aansprakelijkheid kan rusten voor schade als gevolg van een doen of (na)laten van een (klein)dochtervennootschap. Overigens beweert SPDC niet het tegendeel; slechts meent zij, op vooral feitelijke gronden, dat, gelijk ook de rechtbank oordeelde, dergelijke omstandigheden zich hier niet voordoen, doch dat is nu juist voorwerp van debat in de volgende fase van het hoger beroep (hierna: fase 2), terwijl niet nu al vast staat dat SPDC het gelijk aan haar zijde heeft en, als voorbeeld, RDS naar Nigeriaans recht ook dan vrij is van aansprakelijkheden indien, zoals Milieudefensie c.s. primair stelt, de lekkage en de daardoor ontstane schade het voorzienbare gevolg waren van een ook bij de moedervennootschap reeds lang bekend onderhouds-/ corrosieprobleem, dat te wijten was aan een systematisch falen van SPDC, waar de moedervennootschap van afwist, doch niets aan deed, hoewel zij daar op grond van kennis, mogelijkheden en middelen zeer wel toe in staat was. In aanmerking nemende de voorzienbaar ernstige gevolgen van olielekkages voor onder meer het milieu ter plaatse van een potentiële lekkagebron valt niet op voorhand uit te sluiten dat van de moedervennootschap in een dergelijk geval verwacht mag worden dat zij zich de belangen bij het voorkomen van lekkages aantrekt (dat er met andere woorden een duty of care bestaat volgens de criteria uit de uitspraak Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2, [1990] 1 All ER 56), eens temeer indien zij een speerpunt heeft gemaakt van het voorkomen van milieuschade door activiteiten van de concernvennootschappen en tot op zekere hoogte actieve bemoeienis heeft met en sturing geeft aan de bedrijfsvoering van die vennootschappen, waarmee overigens niet gezegd wil zijn dat zonder die aandacht en bemoeienis een schending van de zorgplicht ondenkbaar is en een verwijtbaar negeren van bedoelde belangen nimmer tot aansprakelijkheid kan leiden. Dat er volgens Shell geen uitspraken van Nigeriaanse rechters zijn waarin concernaansprakelijkheid op deze grond is aanvaard maakt het voorgaande niet anders. Daarmee is immers niet gezegd dat het Nigeriaanse recht per definitie geen aanknopingspunten biedt voor een onder (die) omstandigheden aan te nemen (schending van de) zorgplicht van de moedervennootschap, ook niet in het kader van het opruimen van de vervuiling en het voorkomen van herhaling. Nu het Nigeriaanse recht als common law systeem gebaseerd is op het Engelse recht en de common law c.q. Engelse jurisprudentie geldt als belangrijke kenbron binnen het Nigeriaanse rechtstelsel zouden die aanknopingspunten ook gevonden kunnen worden in uitspraken zoals die in de zaak Chandler v Cape [2012] EWCA Civ 525. Dat laatstbedoelde uitspraak - waarin niet is uitgesloten dat ook andere omstandigheden dan welke in die zaak aan de orde waren kunnen leiden tot een duty of care voor de moedervennootschap - in een geval als hiervoor geschetst in geen enkel opzicht precedentwerking kan hebben (ten nadele van RDS) staat niet op voorhand vast en volgt meer speciaal ook niet uit de nadien gegeven beslissing in de zaak Thompson v The Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635, waarin een niet in alle opzichten vergelijkbare casus speelde; onder andere was sprake van een zuivere holdingvennootschap, met dochtervennootschappen met sterk uiteenlopende bedrijfsactiviteiten - vgl. enerzijds punt 33 van laatstbedoelde uitspraak (over de reikwijdte van Chandler v Cape): ‘It is clear that Arden LJ intended this formulation to be descriptive of circumstances in which a duty might be imposed rather than exhaustive of the circumstances in which a duty may be imposed.’ en anderzijds punt 36 (over de afwijking): ‘The mere recitation of these factors demonstrates how far removed from Chandler v Cape is this case.’ Wel lijkt de beslissing Thompson v The Renwick Group Plc erop te wijzen dat een duidelijke samenhang is vereist tussen de geleden schade en de rol die de moedermaatschappij binnen de groep heeft vervuld; waar het volgens Tomlinson LJ om gaat is dat sprake is van een situatie waarin de moedervennootschap vanwege ‘its superior knowledge or expertise’ ‘is better placed’ om in te grijpen (punt 37). Of zich een dergelijke situatie voordoet - hetgeen Shell gemotiveerd betwist, onder andere door te wijzen op de beoordelingsruimte van de operating company bij de toepassing van de niet door de moedervennootschap zelf opgestelde standaarden - en of er ook overigens voldoende aansluiting bestaat bij bijvoorbeeld de uitspraak in Chandler v Cape zal zo nodig na verder debat hierover in fase 2 van het hoger beroep worden beoordeeld. Bij toepassing van Nigeriaans recht zal dan onder andere uitgangspunt zijn dat het niet aan de Nederlandse rechter is om een geheel nieuwe rechtsontwikkeling in het Nigeriaanse recht in te luiden. Voor nu kan dit punt verder blijven rusten.

Ook overigens is de betwisting door SPDC van de door de rechtbank aangenomen samenhang van de vorderingen en de doelmatigheid van een gezamenlijke behandeling ongegrond. Dit wordt hieronder nader toegelicht. Vooraf wordt kort stilgestaan bij de betekenis van art. 7 lid 1 Rv als bevoegdheidsgrond ingeval van pluraliteit van gedaagden. Deze bevoegdheidsgrond is blijkens de wetsgeschiedenis ingegeven door redenen van doelmatigheid en proces-economie. Om nu te voorkomen dat deze (aan de pluraliteit van gedaagden te ontlenen) bevoegdheid exorbitant zou zijn indien er geen verband tussen de onderscheiden vorderingen bestaat, heeft de wetgever de (in art. 6 sub 1 Brussel I-Verordening gecodificeerde) rechtspraak van het Hof van Justitie over art. 6 sub 1 EEX-Verdrag in art. 7 lid 1 Rv verwerkt (HvJ EG 27 september 1988, C-189/87, ECLI:EU:C:1988:459Kalfelis/Bank Schröder), ‘zodat van een afwijking van artikel 6, onderdeel 1 EEX geen sprake is’. Onder verwijzing naar HR 27 oktober 1978, NJ 1980, 102 en HR 16 mei 1986, NJ 1987, 456 is toegevoegd dat het hier bedoelde verband aanwezig wordt geacht wanneer ‘redenen van doelmatigheid een gezamenlijke behandeling wettigen’

(Kamerstukken II 1999/2000 26855, nr. 3, p. 37). Omdat aldus bedoeld is aan te sluiten bij art. 6 sub 1 Brussel I-Verordening (thans art. 8 sub 1 Verordening (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 betreffende de rechterlijke bevoegdheid, de erkenning en de tenuitvoerlegging van beslissingen in burgerlijke en handelszaken) zal bij de beantwoording van de voorliggende bevoegdheidsvraag ook aan die bepaling worden getoetst. Daarbij is ook de verdere rechtspraak van het Hof van Justitie met betrekking tot die alternatieve bevoegdheidsgrond van belang. Hierna wordt eerst bezien of een gezamenlijke behandeling doelmatig is in de zin van art. 7 lid 1 Rv.

In aanmerking nemende: (i) dat tussen de als hoofdelijke medeschuldenaren aangesproken gedaagden een concernrelatie bestaat, waarbij het doen en (na)laten van SPDC als concernvennootschap een grote rol speelt bij de beoordeling van een eventuele aansprakelijkheid/gehoudenheid van RDS als top-holding; (ii) dat de tegen hen ingestelde eis gelijkluidend is en (iii) dezelfde feitelijke grondslag heeft, in die zin dat het om dezelfde lekkage gaat, terwijl (iv) het debat over de feiten zich in belangrijke mate toespitst op vragen als hoe die lekkage is ontstaan en of voldoende is gedaan om deze te voorkomen en de gevolgen ervan ongedaan te maken, in welk verband (v) mogelijk nader onderzoek geïndiceerd is, (vi) welk onderzoek, ter voorkoming van uiteenlopende bevindingen en beoordelingen, het beste bij één rechter kan worden geconcentreerd, moet de conclusie zijn dat tussen de vorderingen tegen RDS en die tegen SPDC een zodanige samenhang bestaat, dat redenen van doelmatigheid een gezamenlijke behandeling rechtvaardigen, zoals bedoeld in art. 7 lid 1 Rv. Ten overvloede wordt er in dit verband op gewezen dat bij een onbevoegdverklaring ten aanzien van de tegen SPDC gerichte vorderingen, hier te lande nog steeds moet worden geoordeeld over hetzelfde feitencomplex, dat immers ook aan de vorderingen tegen RDS ten grondslag ligt.

Wat de toets aan art. 6 sub 1 Brussel I-Verordening betreft geldt dat, gelet op de zojuist genoemde elementen, tussen de tegen RDS en SPDC ingestelde vorderingen een zo nauwe band bestaat dat een goede rechtsbedeling vraagt om hun gelijktijdige berechting, teneinde te vermijden dat bij afzonderlijke berechting van de zaken onverenigbare beslissingen worden gegeven. Van onverenigbare beslissingen is sprake wanneer zich in het kader van eenzelfde situatie, feitelijk en rechtens, divergentie in de beslechting van het geschil voordoet. Hier doet zich ‘eenzelfde situatie, feitelijk en rechtens’ (en daarmee een risico van onverenigbare beslissingen bij afzonderlijke berechting) voor, nu het hier gaat om de mogelijke aansprakelijkheid naar Nigeriaans recht van twee concernvennootschappen - een moeder- en een (klein)dochtervennootschap - voor (het niet-voorkomen van) dezelfde olielekkage en het niet adequaat opruimen van dezelfde vervuiling. Toegevoegd wordt nog dat geen omzeiling van de in art. 6 sub 1 vastgelegde bevoegdheidsregel is vastgesteld; er is geen afdoende bewijs op grond waarvan geconcludeerd kan worden dat Milieudefensie c.s. de voorwaarden voor toepasselijkheid van deze bevoegdheidsgrond kunstmatig heeft gecreëerd of gehandhaafd (vgl. HvJ EU 21 mei 2015, C‑352/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:335CDC/Akzo); van bij voorbaat evident kansloze ankervorderingen is, zoals hiervoor werd overwogen, geen sprake.

Het voorgaande wordt niet anders doordat de rechtsgrondslagen van de vorderingen tegen SPDC en RDS verschillen, althans niet geheel en al samenvallen (vgl. onder meer HvJ EG 11 oktober 2007, C-98/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:595Freeport/Arnoldson). Onjuist is ook de aan het eerdergenoemde Painer-arrest ontleende tegenwerping dat het voor SPDC niet voorzienbaar was dat zij voor een andere dan de Nigeriaanse rechter c.q. voor de Nederlandse rechter zou worden gedagvaard (daargelaten de vraag of dit vereiste steeds van toepassing is in het kader van art. 7 lid 1 Rv); tegen de achtergrond van (i) de al langer gaande ontwikkelingen op het gebied van de foreign direct liability claims (vgl. o.m.: de in de jaren ’90 in de Verenigde Staten van Amerika tegen Shell aangespannen procedures wegens een beweerdelijke betrokkenheid van het concern bij mensenrechtenschendingen; de zaak Bowoto v Chevron Texaco (09-15641); Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013), alsook de zaak Lubbe v Cape Plc. [2000] UKHL 41), met daarbij gevoegd (ii) de vele olielekkages die zich jaarlijks voordeden bij de oliewinning in Nigeria, (iii) de juridische procedures die daarover sedert jaar en dag (volgens Shell al meer dan 60 jaar) worden gevoerd, (iv) de problemen die deze olielekkages teweegbrengen voor mens en milieu en (v) de toegenomen aandacht voor dergelijke problemen, moet het voor RDS als hoofd en voor SPDC als operationeel onderdeel van het Shell-concern redelijkerwijs voorzienbaar zijn geweest dat op den duur de pijlen ook op RDS zouden kunnen worden gericht, waarbij dan SPDC, die al meermalen in Nigeria in rechte was betrokken, ook wel eens zou kunnen worden opgeroepen voor een gerecht met bevoegdheid ten aanzien van RDS. In dit verband wordt er - terzijde - op gewezen dat SPDC wegens andere lekkages (tussen 2008 en 2009 aan dezelfde pijpleiding, maar dan bij het dorp Bodo) voor de Engelse rechter is gedagvaard: The Bodo Community and Others v SPDC [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC). Diens bevoegdheid heeft SPDC niet betwist, naar zij stelt omdat het daarbij ging om ‘operational spills’ waarvoor zij aansprakelijkheid aanvaardt. De hier bedoelde voorzienbaarheid staat of valt echter niet met het al dan niet aanvaarden van aansprakelijkheid. Ook de tegenwerping van SPDC dat de onderhavige lekkages zich in Nigeria afspeelden en dat Nigeriaans recht in dezen van toepassing is, zodat de zaak het beste door de rechter in haar thuisland, Nigeria, kan worden beoordeeld legt, afgezet tegen de elementen die vóór een gezamenlijke behandeling pleiten, onvoldoende gewicht in de schaal.

In hetgeen hiervoor is overwogen ligt besloten dat van misbruik van procesrecht (art. 7 lid 1 Rv) geen sprake is; meer in het bijzonder is niet aannemelijk dat zich hier het geval voordoet dat de procedure tegen RDS slechts een schijnprocedure is, met als enig doel om SPDC op basis van bij voorbaat kansloze vorderingen tegen RDS van haar natuurlijke forum te beroven. Ook speelt hier geen rol dat art. 7 lid 1 Rv niet een woonplaatseis ten aanzien van één der gedaagden stelt en dat om die reden in een zaak als de onderhavige bij een beoordeling van de samenhang een (extra) antimisbruiktoets zou moeten worden aangelegd; RDS had immers woonplaats hier te lande (art. 60 Brussel I-Verordening).

De conclusie na het voorgaande moet dan ook zijn dat aan het vereiste van een voldoende samenhang als bedoeld in art. 7 lid 1 Rv is voldaan, ook in de mate dat met deze bepaling aansluiting is gezocht bij art. 6 sub 1 Brussel I-Verordening. Art. 7 lid 1 Rv vormde derhalve een voldoende basis voor het aannemen van internationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter met betrekking tot de vorderingen tegen SPDC. Verder is het niet zo dat een eenmaal ex art. 7 lid 1 Rv aangenomen internationale bevoegdheid weer komt te vervallen als de ankervordering ongegrond blijkt. De in art. 7 lid 1 Rv bedoelde samenhang moet aanwezig zijn op het tijdstip waarop de procedure in de eerste aanleg aanhangig wordt gemaakt; een dan op die grond bestaande internationale bevoegdheid kan, behoudens bijzondere, hier niet aan de orde zijnde omstandigheden, tijdens de loop van de procedure niet meer wijzigen. Een andere opvatting komt in strijd met het zgn. perpetuatio fori-beginsel (vgl. Hof Den Haag 30 november 2010, ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2010:BP3078).

Shells eerste grief in het incidenteel appel in zaak c faalt derhalve; de Nederlandse rechter is internationaal bevoegd tot kennisneming van de vorderingen in de hoofdzaak tegen SPDC en dus ook van de mede tegen SPDC gerichte incidentele vordering ex art. 843a Rv.

bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter m.b.t. de vorderingen tegen de moedervennootschap

Shell Petroleum is een hier te lande gevestigde vennootschap, reden waarom de Nederlandse rechter (ex art. 2 sub 1 Brussel I-Verordening) bevoegd is tot kennisneming van een tegen haar ingestelde vordering. Ten aanzien van de niet hier te lande gevestigde RDS bestaat die bevoegdheid op grond van art. 2 lid 1 juncto art. 60 lid 1 Brussel I-Verordening en ten aanzien van de evenmin in Nederland gevestigde Shell T&T, zo al niet op grond van art. 6 sub 1, dan toch op grond van art. 24 Brussel I-Verordening.

ontvankelijkheid van Milieudefensie

Shell bestrijdt het op art. 3:305a (oud) BW gebaseerde vorderingsrecht van Milieudefensie (grief 2 in incidenteel appel). Wie er bevoegd is om een collectieve actie voor de belangen van anderen in te stellen ziet zij als een materieelrechtelijke vraag die moet worden beoordeeld naar de lex causae, in dit geval Nigeriaans recht, dat naar zij stelt geen grondslag biedt voor zodanige actie. Deze zienswijze kan niet als juist worden aanvaard.

Voor de ontvankelijkheid van een eisende partij is in het algemeen vereist dat deze een eigen, rechtstreeks belang bij de ingestelde rechtsvordering heeft (vgl. art. 3:296, 302 en 303 BW). Art. 3:305a BW vormt hierop een aanvulling in die zin dat een stichting of vereniging met volledige rechtsbevoegdheid een vordering kan instellen indien deze strekt tot bescherming van gelijksoortige belangen van anderen, voor zover zij deze belangen ingevolge haar statuten behartigt. Deze mogelijkheid tot collectieve actie heeft zowel een materiële als een processuele zijde. Wat de materiële kant betreft kan worden gedacht aan de vraag of bij schending van de door de stichting/vereniging behartigde (milieu)belangen een materiële aanspraak bestaat, bijvoorbeeld op grond van een vordering uit hoofde van onrechtmatige daad. Deze vraag wordt, evenals die van de gegrondheid/toewijsbaarheid, beantwoord aan de hand van het recht dat de (onrechtmatige daad-)vordering beheerst, dat wil zeggen de lex causae. Of - en, zo ja, in hoeverre en op welke wijze - dat vorderingsrecht, behalve door of namens de gerechtigde, ook via een collectieve actie in rechte geldend kan worden gemaakt, moet naar Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht echter worden gekwalificeerd als een vraag van procesrecht, waar de lex fori processus – dus Nederlands recht – op van toepassing is. Een negatieve beantwoording van die procesrechtelijke vraag zou de beoordeling van de zaak aan de rechter onttrekken. Dat geval doet zich hier niet voor, nu art. 3:305a BW voorziet in die mogelijkheid van een collectieve actie. Een andere vraag is of Milieudefensie als belangenvereniging volledige rechtsbevoegdheid heeft. Dat die laatste vraag, naar het daarop toepasselijke incorporatierecht, bevestigend moet worden beantwoord is niet in geschil.

Los van het voorgaande moet het er op basis van de thans beschikbare informatie over het Nigeriaanse recht voor gehouden worden dat ook naar dat recht een collectieve actie (als public interest) door een belangenorganisatie als Milieudefensie mogelijk is en dat haar daarbij geen gebrek aan locus standi kan worden tegengeworpen, maar dit terzijde (vgl. Fawehinmi v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) 23 WRN 65 en zie ook de preambule van de Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules van 11 november 2009).

Ook de overige gronden waarop Shell de niet-ontvankelijkheid van Milieudefensie bepleit bieden daarvoor onvoldoende basis. De rechtbank besprak en verwierp die gronden in het incidentele vonnis van 14 september 2011 - rov. 4.5 - en in het eindvonnis van 30 januari 2013, rov. 4.13 en 4.14. Die overwegingen zijn juist en dienen als hier herhaald en ingelast te worden beschouwd. Het volgende wordt eraan toegevoegd. Geen absolute voorwaarde voor ontvankelijkheid bij een actie ex art. 3:305a BW - ook niet in de huidige, op 1 juli 2013 in werking getreden versie - is dat het gevorderde niet langs een andere weg kan worden bereikt; in het onderhavige geval bijvoorbeeld via een groepsactie van alle leden van de Goi-gemeenschap of een representative action, gevoerd door een aantal van die leden ten behoeve van zichzelf en van anderen. Voorwaarde is wel dat de vordering strekt tot bescherming van gelijksoortige belangen van andere personen. Aan die eis is voldaan indien de belangen ter bescherming waarvan de rechtsvordering strekt zich lenen voor bundeling, zodat een efficiënte en effectieve rechtsbescherming ten behoeve van de belanghebbenden kan worden bevorderd. Op die wijze kan immers in één procedure geoordeeld worden over de door de rechtsvordering aan de orde gestelde geschilpunten en vorderingen, zonder dat daarbij de bijzondere omstandigheden aan de zijde van de individuele belanghebbenden - bijvoorbeeld de processuele implicaties van het overlijden van één hunner - behoeven te worden betrokken, althans het debat domineren en/of de afloop ervan bepalen. Dat de belangen ter bescherming waarvan de onderhavige rechtsvordering strekt - meer in het bijzonder: het belang bij de vaststelling van aansprakelijkheid, bij het opruimen van de verontreiniging en bij het voorkomen van nieuwe schades - zich voor bundeling lenen is terecht niet weersproken, net zo min als de overweging van de rechtbank dat de hierop betrekking hebbende vorderingen het individueel belang van (de vader van) Eric Dooh duidelijk overstijgen. Ook is het niet zo dat de groep van personen ten behoeve van wie de rechtsvordering is ingesteld zo gering en wel omkaderd is dat het procederen op naam van de belanghebbenden eenvoudig te realiseren was. Onjuist, althans onvoldoende onderbouwd is voorts het verweer van Shell dat de milieubelangen van degenen die door de onderhavige lekkage zijn getroffen onvoldoende gewaarborgd zijn bij het optreden door Milieudefensie; de voorwaarde dat de belangen van de vertegenwoordigde personen ‘voldoende gewaarborgd’ dienen te zijn is bedoeld als handvat om de ontvankelijkheid kritisch te kunnen beoordelen in die gevallen waarin getwijfeld wordt aan de motieven voor het instellen van een collectieve actie. Dit voorkomt dat claimstichtingen het collectief actierecht gebruiken om hun eigen commercieel gedreven motieven na te streven. Daarbij is het niet zo dat een organisatie met geen of slechts een geringe achterban onder de kring der direct belanghebbenden per definitie niet aan deze voorwaarde kan voldoen. De parlementaire geschiedenis noemt als voorbeeld de Consumentenbond, die in een collectieve actie de rechter vraagt een oneerlijke handelspraktijk te verbieden. Dat doet zij dan ten behoeve van iedere consument die potentieel door deze handelspraktijk getroffen zou kunnen worden. Ook indien het aantal van deze consumenten dat feitelijk lid is van of aangesloten is bij de Consumentenbond slechts een kleine minderheid is zal er niet aan getwijfeld worden dat de belangen van deze grotere groep consumenten voldoende gewaarborgd zijn. Voor twijfel aan het uiteindelijke doel van Milieudefensie om ter plaatse een schoner milieu te bewerkstelligen bestaat evenmin aanleiding; het verder opruimen van (mogelijk) nog bestaande en het voorkomen van nieuwe olieverontreinigingen is daar dienstig aan. Terzijde wordt er nog op gewezen dat de hier bedoelde voorwaarde van het ‘voldoende gewaarborgd’ zijn van de belangen van de vertegenwoordigde personen in de plaats is gekomen van een aanvankelijk voorgestelde representativiteitseis, aan welke eis ideële organisaties en milieu- en dierenwelzijnsorganisaties in dat voorstel niet behoefden te voldoen; niet aannemelijk is dat de zienswijze op dat punt is gewijzigd.

De suggestie van Shell dat Milieudefensie niet beschikt over voldoende kennis en vaardigheden voor de onderhavige milieuactie mist een behoorlijke onderbouwing; dat Milieudefensie niet in het bewuste gebied werkzaam of gevestigd is, is daarvoor onvoldoende. Bijvoorbeeld blijkt niet van een relevante kennisachterstand ten opzichte van de wel in dat gebied woonachtige Nigeriaanse eisers met wie Milieudefensie bovendien samen optrekt. Het door Shell verder nog gebezigde argument dat de door Milieudefensie c.s. gevorderde verklaring voor recht hier te lande geen basis biedt voor een schadevergoedingsactie tegen SPDC, net zo min als in Nigeria, omdat naar Nigeriaans recht een vordering tot schadevergoeding inmiddels is verjaard, legt evenmin gewicht in de schaal, reeds omdat de vorderingen van Milieudefensie c.s. in elk geval meeromvattend zijn. De juistheid van dit laatste argument kan daarom in dit stadium van het geding in het midden blijven. Andere, door de rechtbank (in de eerder aangehaalde overwegingen) verworpen, argumenten van Shell zijn: (i) dat de actie ex art. 3:305a BW niet bedoeld is voor het door een Nederlandse belangenorganisatie behartigen van een zuiver lokaal buitenlands belang dat geen enkele band met de Nederlandse rechtssfeer heeft; (ii) dat de statutaire doelomschrijving van Milieudefensie niet specifiek genoeg is om het beschermen van het milieu nabij Goi daaronder te scharen, (iii) dat Milieudefensie ter plaatse geen activiteiten verricht en (iv) dat de Goi-gemeenschap bezwaar heeft tegen het optreden van Milieudefensie. Aan de bespreking en verwerping van deze vier argumenten door de rechtbank wordt nog het volgende toegevoegd. Voor een beperking van het toepassingsbereik van art. 3:305a BW zoals Shell met het eerste argument voor staat, bestaat geen goede grond. Bovendien is hier een voldoende band met de Nederlandse rechtssfeer aanwezig, te weten voor zover het bestaan en de omvang van de zorgplicht van de hier te lande kantoorhoudende moedervennootschap ter beoordeling voorliggen. Dat die beoordeling plaatsvindt naar Nigeriaans recht doet hier niet aan af. De argumenten (ii) en (iii) falen omdat een voldoende verband bestaat tussen de statutaire doelstelling van Milieudefensie en het door haar gevorderde, terwijl zij ook voldoende bijbehorende activiteiten aan de dag heeft gelegd, o.m. door het voeren van campagnes, organiseren van bijeenkomsten, doen van onderzoek, etc. Het laatste argument (iv), betreffende het gestelde bezwaar van de Goi-gemeenschap, is door Milieudefensie voldoende ontkracht met de harerzijds overgelegde verklaringen en is, gelet op het bepaalde in artikel 3:305a lid 5 BW, ook overigens niet doorslaggevend.

De conclusie is dat de grief faalt.

ontvankelijkheid en vorderingsgerechtigdheid van Eric Dooh

Shell heeft tegen de ontvankelijkheid en de vorderingsgerechtigheid van Eric Dooh in dit stadium van het geding drie argumenten aangevoerd:

( a) de vader van Eric Dooh heeft niet aangetoond dat hij exclusief eigenaar of exclusief bezitter is geworden van de gronden, beplantingen en visvijvers waaraan de schade zou zijn toegebracht; hetzelfde geldt voor Eric Dooh als diens eventuele rechtsopvolger;

( b) Eric Dooh heeft niet aangetoond dat hij enig erfgenaam is van zijn vader of dat hij anderszins rechthebbende is geworden op de in de eerste aanleg door zijn vader ingestelde vorderingen;

( c) de vorderingen van de vader van Eric Dooh zijn met diens overlijden tenietgegaan.

Deze verweren zijn door Shell aangevoerd, zowel in het kader van de thans (in fase 1) ter beoordeling voorliggende vordering ex art. 843a Rv (respectievelijk het hoger beroep tegen de beslissing van de rechtbank op die vordering) als in de hoofdzaak, waarover in fase 2 zal worden geoordeeld. Al deze verweren strekken er toe te betogen dat de vorderingen van Eric Dooh tot schadevergoeding etc. niet toewijsbaar zijn en dat daarom de vordering ex art. 843a Rv evenmin toewijsbaar is. Het is echter niet aan de rechter die over een vordering ex art. 843a Rv beslist om ten gronde en definitief te oordelen over (elementen van) de hoofdvordering. Voor nu volstaat dat Eric Dooh voldoende aannemelijk maakt dat hij in een zodanige relatie tot de vervuilde visvijvers en gronden staat dat hij uit dien hoofde gelegitimeerd is om de mogelijk voor de vervuiling aansprakelijke partij aan te spreken. De hiervoor onder 5.1 genoemde verweren worden tegen die achtergrond beoordeeld. Als eerste wordt het verweer 5.1 (c) besproken, omdat dat de verste strekking heeft.

Shell heeft kort voor de op 12 maart 2015 in fase 1 gehouden pleidooien een beslissing van 6 december 2013 van het Federal High Court of Nigeria in Port Harcourt in het geding gebracht. Daarin is uitgemaakt dat de door Barizaah M.T. Dooh (de vader van Eric Dooh) in Nigeria tegen SPDC aanhangig gemaakte procedure een action in personam en niet een action in rem is; dit omdat die procedure alleen gaat over (olieverontreiniging)schade aan zijn eigendommen (visvijvers en landerijen) en daarom met zijn overlijden (op 14 januari 2012) is geëindigd, reden waarom Eric Doohs verzoek om die procedure te mogen overnemen is afgewezen. Deze uitspraak, die op de voet van art. 431 Rv voor erkenning in aanmerking komt, brengt mee dat Eric Dooh niet-ontvankelijk is in zijn appel, aldus Shell.

Naar aanleiding hiervan wordt vooropgesteld dat de vraag of Eric Dooh, gesteld dat hij naar Nigeriaans recht in de rechten van zijn vader is getreden, de onderhavige procedure van zijn overleden vader kon overnemen, moet worden beoordeeld naar het recht van de lex fori, dus naar Nederlands recht. Die vraag moet bevestigend worden beantwoord; indien Eric Dooh naar Nigeriaans recht de rechtsopvolger is van zijn vader, in die zin dat hij de oorspronkelijk door zijn vader ingestelde vordering mag vervolgen, was hij gerechtigd als zijn rechtsopvolger het onderhavige hoger beroep in te stellen.

Shell betoogt evenwel dat uit de uitspraak van 6 december 2013 van het Federal High Court of Nigeria blijkt dat het vorderingsrecht van de vader van Eric Dooh tegen SPDC door diens overlijden teniet is gegaan en dat Eric Dooh om die reden niet (in appel) als rechtsopvolger kan optreden. Dit standpunt is voor het eerst naar voren gebracht tijdens de pleidooien in fase 1. Tot dan toe had Shell zich beperkt tot het argument dat Eric Dooh niet bevoegd is als rechtsopvolger van zijn overleden vader de door die vader ingestelde vordering te vervolgen. Shell had niet eerder als verweer aangevoerd dat de vordering van Eric Doohs vader met diens overlijden was tenietgegaan (hoewel de eerst twee weken voor de pleidooien in het geding gebrachte uitspraak van het Federal High Court bij SPDC als partij in die zaak al veel langer bekend zal zijn geweest). De uitspraak van 6 december 2013 gaat evenwel uitsluitend over de vraag of Eric Dooh zijn vader in de bij het Federal High Court aanhangige procedure mocht opvolgen. Die vraag is ontkennend beantwoord. Weliswaar kunnen de overwegingen van het Federal High Court zo worden gelezen dat daarin is beslist dat het vorderingsrecht van de vader van Eric Dooh met diens overlijden teniet is gegaan, maar helemaal helder is dit niet. Om hierover met zekerheid een oordeel te kunnen geven is nadere voorlichting over het Nigeriaanse recht nodig, die er nu niet is; Milieudefensie c.s. heeft daarvoor, door het late tijdstip waarop Shell zich op de Nigeriaanse uitspraak heeft beroepen, ook onvoldoende gelegenheid gehad. Daar komt bij dat het in de bedoelde procedure voor het Federal High Court blijkens die uitspraak alleen om de betaling van een vast bedrag aan schadevergoeding ging. Onduidelijk is in hoeverre de uitspraak van de Nigeriaanse rechter ook van toepassing is op een zaak als de onderhavige, waarin naast vergoeding van reeds geleden schade óók een veroordeling wordt gevraagd tot vergoeding van schade die nog zal ontstaan (hetgeen dus ook kan betekenen: ontstaan na het overlijden van de vader van Eric Dooh) en waarin tevens andere vorderingen aan de orde zijn, zoals het bevel de aanwezige vervuiling op te ruimen en verdere vervuiling te voorkomen. Gezien het late tijdstip waarop Shell een en ander naar voren heeft gebracht bestaat thans, dat wil zeggen in fase 1, geen aanleiding om hier in het kader van de vorderingen ex art. 843a Rv nader onderzoek naar te doen, bijvoorbeeld door het inwinnen van een deskundigenbericht over Nigeriaans recht. Zo nodig zal dit punt onderwerp van (verder) debat kunnen vormen in fase 2. De conclusie is dat dit argument van Shell geen reden vormt om de vordering ex art. 843a Rv af te wijzen.

Met betrekking tot het onder 5.1 (b) bedoelde verweer van Shell dat Eric Dooh niet heeft aangetoond dat hij enig erfgenaam is van zijn vader, of dat hij anderszins rechthebbende is geworden op de in de eerste aanleg door zijn vader ingestelde vorderingen, wordt het volgende overwogen. Uit Shells verweer valt op te maken dat zij terecht niet (langer) betwist dat de erfopvolging dient te worden beoordeeld naar het daarop toepasselijke Nigeriaanse recht; zie art. 10:145 lid 2 BW juncto art. 3 lid 1 Haags Verdrag Erfopvolging (1989). Vooralsnog heeft Eric Dooh genoegzaam aangetoond dat hij naar dat recht erfopvolger is van de overleden Barizaah M.T. Dooh en in diens rechten is getreden voor zover het om de wel voor overgang vatbare vorderingen gaat. Eric Dooh heeft immers gemotiveerd gesteld dat erfopvolging naar Nigeriaans recht hoofdzakelijk door gewoonterecht wordt bepaald, dat in de Niger Delta in het algemeen geldt dat de eerstgeboren zoon het (exclusieve) bezit en eigendom van zijn vader erft, dat dit ten aanzien van Eric Dooh is bevestigd door de Goi Council of Chiefs and Elders, terwijl de vader van Eric Dooh hem in een verklaring van 12 mei 2011 als opvolger heeft aangewezen. Shell heeft dit alles niet (voldoende gemotiveerd) weersproken, anders dan door een verwijzing naar de uitspraak van het Federal High Court of Nigeria van 6 december 2013, die niet (zozeer) over erfopvolging gaat en die ook om de hiervoor uiteengezette redenen niet doorslaggevend wordt geacht. Eric Dooh was dan ook bevoegd om het beroep op eigen naam in te stellen (vgl. de artt. 332 en 341 Rv).

Onjuist is Shells standpunt - verweer 5.1 (a) - dat voor de vorderingsgerechtigheid van Eric Dooh vereist is dat hij exclusief eigenaar dan wel exclusief bezitter is van de getroffen gronden en visvijvers. Naar Nigeriaans recht is voor de vorderingsgerechtigdheid bepalend of het belang van de eisende partij in gronden die in familiebezit zijn wordt geschaad, bijvoorbeeld omdat hij die grond in gebruik heeft (vgl. o.a.: Balogun Ors. v Akanji Ors [2005] 10 NWLR (Pt.933) 394, Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited v Edamkue & Ors. [2009] 14 NWLR (Pt.1160) 1 en Ibator v Barakuro [2007] 9 NWLR 475, en zie in dit verband ook de ruime omschrijving van art. 11(5)(c) van de Oil Pipelines Act (verder: OPA): ‘The holder of a license shall pay compensation (a) to any person whose land or interest in land [..] is injuriously affected [..] and (b) any person suffering damage by reason of any neglect to protect, maintain or repair [..]’). De stelling van de door Shell geraadpleegde professor Oditah, dat de eiser ‘ownership or possession’ moet hebben, wordt weersproken door Akintan JSC in de zaak Ibator v. Barakuro, waaruit blijkt dat ook een ‘occupier (..) of land’ een vordering kan instellen. Dat het daarbij zou gaan om een obiter dictum doet niet af aan de overtuigingskracht van dit citaat. Ook indien echter de stelling van professor Oditah juist zou zijn, lijkt te zijn voldaan aan de voorwaarde dat bij voorheen de vader van Eric Dooh en thans Eric Dooh sprake is (geweest) van ‘possession’. Uit de zaak Ekpan v. Uyo (1986) NWLR (Pt. 26) 63 volgt immers dat onder ‘possession’ moet worden verstaan ‘the occupation or physical control of the land either personally or through an agent or servant’. Eric Dooh en zijn vader hebben, onvoldoende gemotiveerd weersproken, gesteld dat de vader het land en de visvijvers waar vervuiling is opgetreden sinds jaar en dag voor het kweken van vis en het telen van gewassen exploiteerde, zodat de ‘possession’ vooralsnog kan worden aangenomen.

Shell heeft verder als bezwaar aangevoerd dat Eric Dooh nog steeds niet duidelijk heeft gemaakt om welke gronden en visvijvers het gaat. Zij heeft echter niet toegelicht hoe dit bezwaar zich verhoudt tot hetgeen zij eerder stelde, te weten (i) dat in juni 2007 is begonnen met de opruim- en herstelwerkzaamheden in het deel van het getroffen gebied waarin ook de visvijvers gelegen zijn waarvan Dooh stelt eigenaar te zijn en (ii) dat door of namens de ‘Landlord’ van het terrein waarop de visvijvers liggen waarvan Dooh pretendeert eigenaar te zijn bevestigd is dat de opruimwerkzaamheden naar tevredenheid zijn afgerond. Die stellingen wijzen op voldoende bekendheid van Shell met de door Dooh bedoelde locatie. Bovendien gaat het in de procedures niet om een geschil over de eigendomsrechten met betrekking tot de desbetreffende gronden en visvijvers en is in elk geval in deze fase 1 niet van groot belang om welke gronden en visvijvers het precies gaat.

De conclusie is dat ook Shells derde grief in het incidentele appel faalt.

de vordering ex art. 843a Rv.

Milieudefensie c.s. vordert inzage in de op pagina 72 van haar ‘memorie van grieven inzake de afwijzing van de vordering tot exhibitie ex art. 843a Rv’ onder a tot en met o genoemde bescheiden. Deels gaat het daarbij om bescheiden waarmee Milieudefensie c.s. aannemelijk wil maken dat niet, zoals de rechtbank oordeelde, sabotage, maar onvoldoende onderhoud de oorzaak van de lekkage is. Duidelijkheid over die oorzaak acht Milieudefensie c.s. onder meer van belang omdat SPDC op grond van art. 11(5)(c) OPA (risico)aansprakelijk is indien de lekkage gevolg is van corrosie/onvoldoende onderhoud, terwijl sabotage als oorzaak van de lekkage onder die bepaling een bevrijdend verweer oplevert, waarbij het overigens wel aan SPDC is om de juistheid van dat verweer aan te tonen. Verschil van mening lijkt nog wel te bestaan over de vraag welke bewijsmaatstaf daarbij moet worden aangelegd: ‘preponderance or weight of evidence’ of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (vgl. de hiervoor genoemde uitspraak Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited v Edamkue & Ors., voor zover inhoudende als oordeel van I.F. Ogbuagu, J.S.C ‘[..] it is now firmly established in a line of decided authorities by this court firstly, that civil cases are proved by preponderance or weight of evidence’ en van N. Tobi, J.S.C.: ‘The allegation that the spillage was caused by hostile act of some people is an allegation of a criminal act which needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.’). De rechtbank achtte - eerst voorlopig (in het bestreden tussenvonnis) en vervolgens definitief (in het eindvonnis) - voldoende vast staan dat sabotage de oorzaak van de lekkage was. Dat oordeel is mede redengevend voor de afwijzing van de vordering ex art. 843a Rv. Milieudefensie c.s., die het niet eens is met die afwijzing, beklaagt zich daarom over dat oordeel (grief 1).

Naar aanleiding hiervan wordt overwogen dat in deze fase van het hoger beroep niet als vaststaand kan worden aangenomen dat het gat in de pijpleiding het gevolg is geweest van sabotage zoals in het rapport van het Joint Investigation Team (hierna: JIT-rapport) beschreven. Hierbij wordt onder meer in aanmerking genomen: (i) dat het aanwijzen van sabotage als schadeoorzaak kennelijk van meet af aan controversieel is geweest; vgl. het niet door alle betrokkenen voor akkoord tekenen van het JIT-rapport waarin die schadeoorzaak is genoemd; (ii) dat op dit JIT-rapport gaandeweg ook door derden kritiek is geuit, in het bijzonder op de toegepaste onderzoeksmethode en de wijze van verslaglegging, welke kritiek zich klaarblijkelijk niet eenvoudig laat weerleggen, ook niet aan de hand van het video-/fotomateriaal, waaruit niet meteen onomstotelijk blijkt dat sabotage de enige mogelijke schadeoorzaak is; (iii) dat het om een oude leiding (uit 1963) gaat, die, nadat SPDC om veiligheidsredenen uit Ogoniland was vertrokken, niet meer door middel van intelligent pig runs op wanddikte/corrosievorming werd/kon worden gecontroleerd; (iv) dat Shell niet ontkend heeft dat aan de pijpleiding al eerder lekkages hadden plaatsgevonden en dat eigen onderzoek had uitgewezen ‘that the remaining life of most of the SPDC Oil Trunklines is more or less non-existent or short, while some sections contain major risk and hazard’ en dat ‘outright replacement is necessary because extensive corrosion [..]’ en (v) dat in 2008 wederom een lekkage optrad aan de onderhavige 24 inch pijpleiding, toen enige kilometers verderop, bij Bodo, door een lasdefect. Toegevoegd wordt nog dat Milieudefensie c.s. erop gewezen heeft dat uit een rapport van Shell uit 2003 blijkt dat de kritiek op de JIT-onderzoeken, meer speciaal op het daarbij aanwijzen van sabotage als oorzaak van de lekkages, al langer speelde. Daarvan uitgaande is niet zonder meer begrijpelijk waarom niet meer aandacht is besteed aan de kwaliteit van de bewijsvoering op dat punt.

Bij gelegenheid van de in fase 1 van het hoger beroep gehouden pleidooien is ter sprake gebracht of niet alsnog meer duidelijkheid over de schadeoorzaak zou kunnen worden verkregen door middel van een deskundigenonderzoek, waarbij - voor zover dit (ca. 11 jaar na het schadevoorval) nog nuttig en vanuit veiligheidsoogpunt verantwoord is - het bewuste gat in de pijpleiding aan een fysiek onderzoek wordt onderworpen. Zijdens Shell is daarop verklaard dat een dergelijk onderzoek nog tot de mogelijkheden behoort en een veel voor de hand liggender manier is om bewijs over de oorzaak van de lekkage te vergaren – mocht daartoe worden besloten – dan het produceren van papierwerk. Naar aanleiding hiervan wordt partijen in overweging gegeven dat, mochten zij in onderling overleg besluiten dat het aanbeveling verdient om (reeds aan het begin van fase 2) een deskundigenonderzoek te laten plaatsvinden (bij voorkeur door drie deskundigen), hier in beginsel medewerking aan zal worden verleend door het wijzen van een tussenarrest.

Bij deze stand van zaken bestaat onvoldoende aanleiding om Shell thans te gelasten inzage te verlenen in bescheiden aan de hand waarvan Milieudefensie c.s. corrosie/onvoldoende onderhoud als schadeoorzaak aannemelijk hoopt te kunnen maken (onder meer het corrosion management framework, letter g). Naar Shell - onvoldoende gemotiveerd betwist - heeft gesteld, beschikt Milieudefensie c.s. reeds over alle stukken die rechtstreeks betrekking hebben op de onderhavige lekkage. De stukken waarvan Milieudefensie c.s. nu afgifte/inzage vordert kunnen naar verwachting hooguit (zeer) zijdelings licht op de oorzaak van de lekkage werpen.

Nu derhalve de oorzaak van de lekkage, naar verwachting, met meer zekerheid kan worden vastgesteld bij een onderzoek ter plaatse van het onheil dan op basis van de door Milieudefensie c.s. bedoelde bescheiden - anders gezegd: redelijkerwijs kan worden aangenomen dat een behoorlijke rechtsbedeling ook zonder verschaffing van de gevraagde gegevens is gewaarborgd - is het belang van Milieudefensie c.s. bij inzage in die bescheiden onvoldoende gebleken. Daar komt bij dat, mocht een eventueel deskundigenonderzoek geen bevestiging brengen van de sabotage als oorzaak van de lekkage, die schadeoorzaak in beginsel kan worden geschrapt, waarmee het belang bij inzage in bedoelde bescheiden mogelijk vervalt. Uiteraard bestaat de mogelijkheid dat de deskundigen bij hun onderzoek inzage in bepaalde stukken nodig/nuttig achten. Daar dient dan medewerking aan te worden verleend (art. 198 lid 3 Rv).

Indien tot het oordeel zou moeten worden gekomen dat sabotage inderdaad de schadeoorzaak is, dient in de hoofdzaken nog wel te worden beslist op het verwijt dat Shell nalatig is geweest in het voorkomen ervan. Voor zover Milieudefensie c.s. in het kader van dat verwijt inzage in bepaalde bescheiden verlangt, geldt ook daarvoor dat het belang hierbij kan komen te vervallen indien sabotage als schadeoorzaak afvalt. In het andere geval zal aan de hand van het in fase 2 nog nader te voeren debat tussen partijen moeten worden beoordeeld of naar Nigeriaans recht voor Shell in 2004 een verplichting bestond, en zo ja welke, om deze sabotage van de ondergrondse, volgens Milieudefensie c.s. ongeveer 60 centimeter ingegraven oliepijpleiding te voorkomen, althans de schadelijke gevolgen van die sabotage te beperken. Wat Milieudefensie c.s. hierover stelt is dat Shell, wat zij nu wel gaat doen, de pijpleiding voordien al had moeten vervangen en omleggen en had moeten voorzien van technologie die lekkages snel kon detecteren. Partijen wordt opgeroepen om in het kader van fase 2 van het hoger beroep nadere informatie in te winnen (bij voorkeur gezamenlijk) over het destijds geldende Nigeriaanse recht op dit punt, mede in het licht van bijvoorbeeld de eerdere uitspraak SPDC v Otoko (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 159) en de latere uitspraak van de Engelse rechter in de zaak van The Bodo Community and Others v SPDC [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC), waarin Justice Akenhead ‘issue 2, whether SPDC can be liable under Section 11(5)(b) of the OPA 1990 to pay just compensation for damage caused by oil from its pipelines that had been released as the result of illegal bunkering and/or illegal refining’ als volgt beantwoordt: The answer to Issue 2 is strictly speaking “No”; there has to be neglect on the part of the licencee. It is conceivable however that neglect by the licencee in the protection of the pipeline (as defined above) which can be proved to be the enabling cause of preventable damage to the pipeline by people illegally engaged in bunkering which causes spillage could give rise to a liability; this may be difficult to prove but there is that theoretical possibility. I can not at the moment see that damage caused from illegal refining by criminal gangs of crude oil criminally taken from pipelines which have been broken into could fall within a duty “to protect…any work structure or thing executed under the licence” because (I assume) that the illegal refinery has not been executed under licence by the licencee.’

De rechtbank heeft de hier bedoelde vraag naar de gehoudenheid om sabotage te voorkomen ten aanzien van de moedervennootschap impliciet en ten aanzien van SPDC expliciet ontkennend beantwoord. De juistheid van die (nog) niet door grieven bestreden overwegingen ligt thans niet ter beoordeling voor; in een later stadium mogelijk wel, indien althans dient te worden uitgegaan van sabotage als schadeoorzaak. Daarbij kan dan mogelijk van belang zijn hoe vaak zich al eerder een dergelijke sabotage aan deze en eventueel andere ondergrondse pijpleidingen in Ogoniland had voorgedaan. Daarover kunnen partijen zich dan nog nader uitlaten, Shell aan de hand van onderliggende bescheiden (bijvoorbeeld de door Milieudefensie c.s. onder de letter d bedoelde Significant Incidents / High Potential Incidents). Voor nu bestaat onvoldoende aanleiding voor een bevel tot het verstrekken van (andere) bescheiden als door Milieudefensie c.s. in dit verband bedoeld, waaronder: j de surveillancecontracten; k helikopterlogs en de bescheiden aangeduid met de letters l, m en n, nog afgezien van het feit dat Shell aanvoert die stukken niet (meer) te hebben (de onder o bedoelde formulieren zijn door Shell inmiddels als prod. 53 overgelegd).

Milieudefensie c.s. vordert tevens bescheiden met het oog op haar vordering tegen de moedervennootschap; volgens de incidentele conclusie tot exhibitie punt 144 e.v. de bescheiden genoemd onder a t/m f, maar bij memorie van grieven mogelijk uitgebreid met die t/m i. In dat verband is het volgende van belang.

Aan de vordering tegen de moedervennootschap ligt ten grondslag een door Milieudefensie c.s. verweten falend toezicht op het systematisch tekortschieten van SPDC, of zoals Milieudefensie c.s. het ook omschrijft: ‘[..] de moedervennootschap wordt niet verweten dat ze geen vinger aan de pols hield bij de naleving van specifieke procedures, maar dat ze zag dat zich door de vele lekkages en gebrekkige opruimwerkzaamheden door SPDC in de Niger Delta een milieuramp voltrok en naliet om SPDC te bewegen daar iets aan te doen’ (curs., Hof).

Een steeds terugkerend verweer van Shell tegen de inzage-eis in het kader van de aldus gepresenteerde vordering is dat de moedervennootschap geen weet had van de (toestand van de pijpleiding ter plaatse van de) bewuste lekkage en dat de opgevraagde bescheiden daar ook geen betrekking op hebben. Bovendien bestaat een aantal van die bescheiden niet, aldus Shell, die in dat verband de bescheiden omschreven onder de letters a, e, h en i noemt. Daarnaast beroept Shell zich onder meer op een gewichtige reden als bedoeld in art. 843a lid 4 Rv, hierin gelegen dat in een aantal gevallen de bescheiden bedrijfsvertrouwelijke informatie bevatten. Openbaarmaking daarvan is volgens Shell te meer ongewenst nu Milieudefensie bezig is met een tegen haar als concern gerichte campagne, waardoor te voorzien valt dat verstrekte informatie gebruikt zal worden voor weer nieuwe procedures en het verdiepen van die campagne, bij welke campagne zonder enige grond ernstige beschuldigingen worden geuit, aldus Shell, die daar ook een voorbeeld bij geeft.

Wat betreft de door Shell gestelde onbekendheid van de moedervennootschap met de lekkage en de onderhoudstoestand van de pijpleiding ter plaatse geldt dat dit niet in alle gevallen een adequaat verweer lijkt, in het bijzonder niet indien sabotage als oorzaak van de lekkage afvalt. Mede in aanmerking nemende (i) dat Shell zich doelen en ambities stelt, onder andere op het gebied van milieu, en groepsbeleid heeft geformuleerd om die doelen en ambities op een gecoördineerde en uniforme manier te bereiken en (ii) dat RDS (gelijk ook de vorige moedervennootschap) controle uitoefent op de naleving van die groepsstandaarden en dat groepsbeleid, rijzen in dat geval vragen als: (a) welke (onderhouds)normen golden er voor een oude, niet meer inwendig gemonitorde pijpleiding als de onderhavige; (b) werd aan die (onderhouds)normen voldaan; (c) zo ja, waar blijkt dit uit, en zo nee, had dit dan niet moeten worden opgemerkt in het kader van het door de moedervennootschap uitgeoefende toezicht (de audits), (d) ook niet bij een adequaat rapportagesysteem en (e) waarom niet. Een andere vraag is (f) of de moedermaatschappij - rekening houdende met de autonomie en eigen verantwoordelijkheid van (het bestuur van) SPDC - voldoende geëquipeerd was (qua kennis, mogelijkheden en middelen) om adequaat in te grijpen bij gebleken nalatigheden van SPDC.

Vooralsnog uitgaande van een naar Nigeriaans recht onder (zeer) bijzondere omstandigheden te aanvaarden mogelijkheid van aansprakelijkheid van een moedervennootschap wegens het schenden van een zorgplicht heeft Milieudefensie c.s. haar rechtmatige (bewijs)belang bij inzage in de door haar bedoelde bescheiden voldoende toegelicht. Hierna wordt bezien of de vordering tot inzage van die bescheiden ook overigens toewijsbaar is. Het gaat daarbij om de bescheiden met de letters a tot en met i. Op het tegen die toewijzing aangevoerde bezwaar ex art. 843a lid 4 Rv wordt ingegaan in rov. 6.11.

Ad a Taakstellingen en uitgaven bij de jaarlijkse businessplannen inzake onderhoud, milieu en veiligheid met betrekking tot Ogoniland en Goi uit de Businessplannen alsmede de maandelijkse businessrapportages daarover 2000-2004. Shell heeft aangevoerd dat er geen jaarlijkse businessplannen of maandelijkse business rapportages inzake onderhoud, milieu en veiligheid met betrekking tot de omgeving van Goi bestaan. Milieudefensie c.s. heeft daar niet op gereageerd. Meer in het bijzonder heeft zij niet vermeld dat en waarom dit verweer van Shell niet klopt. Evenmin heeft zij een nadere precisering van haar vordering gegeven, reden waarom deze wordt afgewezen, wat gezien de na te melden toewijzingen niet bezwaarlijk behoeft te zijn.

Ad b Het ten tijde van de lekkage meest recente Audit report m.b.t. asset integrity alsmede dat m.b.t. milieu- en veiligheidsbeleid, met bijbehorende findings, recommendations en approval and closeout of actions. Shell heeft aangevoerd dat op zichzelf juist is ‘dat op de naleving van het HSSE-beleid (HSSE staat voor: Health, Security, Safety and Environment, toev. Hof) binnen de Royal Dutch Shell-groep controle plaatsvindt door middel van audits’, maar dat dit niet wil zeggen ‘dat er een audit report zou bestaan met betrekking tot de pijpleiding nabij Goi of met betrekking tot de Emergency and Oil Spill response, inclusief findings en recommendations approval and closeout van de litigieuze lekkage nabij Goi.’ Milieudefensie c.s. heeft daarop bij memorie van grieven, punt 268, een nadere aanduiding gegeven van de door haar bedoelde bescheiden, te weten (voor zover in de onderhavige zaken van belang): (i) de ten tijde van de lekkage meest recente interne Asset Integrity Audit waarin de technical integrity en - voor zover van toepassing - de operational integrity werden beoordeeld van de pijpleiding(en) nabij Goi; (ii) de ten tijde van de lekkage meest recente interne HSE audit (HSE staat voor: Health, Safety and Environment, toev. Hof) waarin SPDC’s Emergency and Oil Spill Response procedures zijn beoordeeld die van toepassing waren op de pijpleidingen en omgeving van Goi; (iii) de naar aanleiding van deze audits gedocumenteerde audit results and remedial action plans (‘findings, recommendations and approval and closeout of actions’). Shell is hier niet meer concreet op ingegaan; zij heeft slechts haar eerdere, hiervoor geciteerde reactie herhaald. Daarmee heeft zij het bestaan van bescheiden zoals door Milieudefensie c.s. in bedoeld punt 268 nader omschreven onvoldoende gemotiveerd betwist. Dat die bescheiden niet specifiek op de onderhavige lekkage(plek) betrekking hebben is geen grond voor afwijzing. Daarmee is immers niet gezegd dat zij niet van belang kunnen zijn bij een beoordeling van de wijze waarop het toezicht was vormgegeven en relevante informatie met de moedervennootschap werd gedeeld. Dit deel de vordering is daarom op na te melden wijze toewijsbaar.

Ad c Assurance letters 2000-2004. Volgens Milieudefensie c.s. moeten werkmaatschappijen in die Assurance letters opgeven dat en hoe zij zich aan het veiligheids- en milieu (HSSE) beleid en de daaraan gerelateerde standaarden van de Group hebben gehouden. De tegenwerping van Shell dat bedoelde bescheiden ‘betrekking hebben op naleving van HSSE-beleid in het algemeen en niet zien op specifieke olielekkages’ is geen grond om inzage te weigeren. Ook daarvoor geldt dat hiermee niet gezegd is dat bedoelde bescheiden niet van belang kunnen zijn bij een beoordeling van de wijze waarop het toezicht was vormgegeven en relevante informatie met de moedermaatschappij werd gedeeld. Dit deel van de vordering is op na te melden wijze toewijsbaar, met daarbij de kanttekening dat het gaat om de door of namens SPDC opgestelde en ingestuurde Assurance letters.

Ad d Meldingen van Significant Incidents en High Potential Incidents 2001-2004. Gevorderd worden de over een periode van drie jaar voorafgaand aan de lekkage in 2004 door SPDC gedane meldingen van (i) (potentiële) lekkages en gebreken aan de gehele pijpleiding bij Goi en (ii) sabotagepogingen aan pijpleidingen in een straal van 100 km rond Goi. Ook met betrekking tot deze meldingen voert Shell het verweer dat zij geen betrekking hebben op de onderhavige lekkage, omdat die lekkage niet valt binnen de categorie ‘incidenten met ernstige gevolgen’ en daarom is opgenomen in een geaggregeerde kwartaalrapportage. Dat laat echter onverlet dat inzage in bedoelde meldingen van belang kan zijn in het kader van de verweten zorgplichtschending. Wat de meldingen van de sabotagepogingen kan van belang zijn of die een ondergrondse pijpleiding betroffen. Dit deel van de vordering is op na te melden wijze toewijsbaar.

Ad e Incident report, investigation report and review m.b.t. de lekkages. Milieudefensie c.s. vordert deze stukken omdat die volgens haar met betrekking tot de lekkage van 2004 moesten worden opgemaakt. Shell heeft een en andermaal het bestaan van deze bescheiden ontkend. Zijdens Milieudefensie c.s. zijn geen aanwijzingen aangedragen die wijzen op het tegendeel. Dit deel van de vorderingen is daarom niet toewijsbaar.

Ad f Notulen van de moedermaatschappij met betrekking tot de onder b, d en e genoemde bescheiden. Voor toewijzing van dit deel van de vordering bestaat onvoldoende aanleiding. Tegen de achtergrond van de hiervoor onder 6.9 bedoelde stellingen (i) en (ii) van Shell wordt met het verlenen van inzage in de onder b, c en d bedoelde bescheiden voldoende tegemoetgekomen aan de belangen van Milieudefensie c.s. Anders gezegd is tegen die achtergrond en gelet op die toewijzing het belang bij inzage van de notulen onvoldoende toegelicht, immers alleen door een verwijzing naar weer andere documenten, waarvan Milieudefensie c.s. de inhoud niet kent.

Ad g Bescheiden uit het Corrosion Management Framework 2001-2004. Milieudefensie c.s. vordert bescheiden uit dit framework met betrekking tot de pijpleiding bij Goi over de drie jaar voorafgaande aan de lekkage in 2004. In haar incidentele conclusie tot exhibitie noemde Milieudefensie c.s. deze bescheiden alleen in verband met haar vordering tegen SPDC. In zoverre wordt de vordering afgewezen op grond van hetgeen hiervoor is overwogen onder 6.3 en 6.4. Voor zover zij de bescheiden nadien tevens gevorderd heeft met het oog op haar vordering tegen de moedervennootschap heeft Shell daartegen ingebracht dat bescheiden als hier bedoeld, voor zover bestaand, niet ter kennis van de moedervennootschap werden en worden gebracht. Milieudefensie c.s. is daar nadien niet meer op ingegaan, terwijl er geen aanwijzingen zijn dat het anders is dan Shell stelt. Dit deel van de vordering is daarom niet toewijsbaar.

Ad h en i Het op Goi/Ogoniland ten tijde van de lekkages van toepassing zijnde HSE-plan en het Hazards en Effects Register en de HSE case van toepassing op Ogoniland en de pijpleiding bij Goi in 2004. Gevorderd worden de uit het HSE-plan relevante passages met betrekking tot de pijpleiding bij Goi, alsook de op de pijpleiding bij Goi van toepassing zijnde Hazards en Effects Register en de HSE-case. Shell voert onder meer het verweer dat er geen specifiek HSE-plan voor ‘Ogoniland en de pijpleiding nabij Goi’ ten tijde van de lekkage in 2004 bestond, evenmin als een Hazards en Effects Register en de HSE-case met betrekking tot Ogoniland en de pijpleiding nabij Goi. Daarmee weerspreekt zij echter niet, althans onvoldoende gemotiveerd, dat er (delen van) meer algemene documenten als bedoeld bestaan die (mede) van toepassing waren op deze pijpleiding en dit gebied. Voor zover bedoelde documenten bestaan dient Shell deze ter inzage te verstrekken op de wijze als hierna vermeld.

Naar aanleiding van het bezwaar van Shell dat een aantal bescheiden bedrijfsvertrouwelijke informatie bevat heeft Milieudefensie c.s. er - terecht - op gewezen dat art. 843a, lid 2, Rv voldoende mogelijkheden biedt om de belangen van Shell te beschermen, bijvoorbeeld door te bepalen dat de stukken uitsluitend ter inzage worden gelegd en/of dat ten aanzien van bepaalde bescheiden aan partijen een geheimhoudingsverplichting wordt opgelegd (vgl. ook art. 29 Rv), dan wel dat alleen de advocaten/rechters kennis nemen van de stukken die een bedrijfsvertrouwelijk karakter hebben. De vordering ex art. 843a Rv wordt thans - onder vernietiging van het afwijzende tussenvonnis van 14 september 2011 - in laatstbedoelde zin toegewezen; de hiervoor bedoelde bescheiden b, c, d, h en i dienen op kosten van Milieudefensie c.s. ter inzage te worden gelegd bij een door partijen in onderling overleg (en bij gebreke van overeenstemming door het Hof) aan te wijzen notaris(kantoor), met bepaling dat alleen de advocaten (inclusief de advocaten die op hun kantoor werkzaam zijn) van partijen, eventuele gerechtsdeskundigen en de leden van de kamer van dit Hof die deze zaken behandelen er kennis van mogen nemen. Uit de bescheiden blijkende informatie die van belang wordt geacht in het kader van de vorderingen in de hoofdzaken mag uitsluitend in deze procedure (zaken c en d) worden gebruikt. De advocaten die inzage hebben mogen aantekeningen maken van die informatie. Er mogen geen fotokopieën of foto’s van de bescheiden worden gemaakt. Indien zich problemen (van welke aard dan ook) voordoen bij de aldus toegestane wijze van inzien kunnen deze door de advocaten van partijen schriftelijk voor nadere beslissing aan het Hof worden voorgelegd.

De tegenwerpingen van Shell tegen de vordering ex art. 843a Rv zijn hiermee voldoende besproken; zij kunnen niet leiden tot een algehele afwijzing. Ook aan het bepaaldheidsvereiste is wat betreft de hiervoor nader omschreven bescheiden onder b, c, d, h en i voldaan. Toegevoegd wordt nog dat wordt aangenomen dat Shell bij machte is om, tegen vergoeding door Milieudefensie c.s. van in redelijkheid te maken kosten, uitvoering te geven aan de hier bedoelde toewijzing.

afrondend

De over en weer aangevoerde grieven zijn met het voorgaande voldoende besproken. Zij kunnen in dit stadium niet tot een ander resultaat leiden.

De beslissing over de kosten in de incidenten wordt aangehouden tot de einduitspraak in de hoofdzaken.

Voor het openstellen van tussentijds cassatieberoep, zoals door Shell verzocht, bestaat onvoldoende aanleiding.

de conclusie

8. De conclusie is: (i) dat sprake is van geldige appelexploten in zaak c; (ii) dat de Nederlandse rechter internationaal bevoegd is om kennis te nemen van de vorderingen tegen zowel de moedervennootschap als de Nigeriaanse (klein)dochtervennootschap SPDC, zowel in het incident ex art. 843a Rv als in de hoofdzaak; (iii) dat Milieudefensie ontvankelijk is in de door haar bij wijze van collectieve actie ingestelde vorderingen; (iv) dat ook Eric Dooh ontvankelijk is en dat in het incident ex art. 843a Rv kan worden uitgegaan van een vorderingsgerechtigdheid van hem; (v) dat Milieudefensie c.s. een rechtmatig belang heeft bij inzage in een aantal van de door haar genoemde bescheiden, doch (vi) dat met het oog op de belangen van Shell voorwaarden worden verbonden aan de wijze waarop deze inzage kan plaatsvinden.

Het Hof, alvorens verder te beslissen:

in het bevoegdheidsincident in het incident betreffende de vordering ex art. 843a Rv - zaak c (200.126.843):

- verklaart de Nederlandse rechter internationaal bevoegd tot kennisneming van de vordering ex art. 843a Rv;

in het incident betreffende de vordering ex art. 843a Rv in beide zaken:

- vernietigt het tussen partijen in het incident ex art. 843a Rv gewezen vonnis van 14 september 2011, behoudens voor zover de vordering ex art. 843a Rv daarin is toegewezen;

en opnieuw rechtdoende op de afgewezen vordering ex art. 843a Rv:

- veroordeelt Shell om binnen acht weken na heden aan Milieudefensie c.s. inzage te verschaffen in de hiervoor in rechtsoverweging 6.9 ad b, c, d, h en i nader omschreven bescheiden;

- bepaalt dat inzage dient te worden verschaft door deze bescheiden

op kosten van Milieudefensie c.s. ter inzage te leggen bij een door partijen in onderling overleg (en bij gebreke van overeenstemming op verzoek van de advocaten van partijen door het Hof) aan te wijzen notaris(kantoor), met bepaling dat alleen de advocaten van partijen, eventuele gerechtsdeskundigen en de leden van de kamer van dit Hof die deze zaken behandelen er kennis van mogen nemen;

- verwerpt de door Shell tegen de aldus gelaste toewijzing gevoerde verweren;

- bepaalt dat, indien zich problemen voordoen bij de uitvoering van bovenstaande veroordeling, de advocaten van partijen deze schriftelijk voor nadere beslissing kunnen voorleggen aan het Hof;

- verklaart dit arrest ten aanzien van bovenstaande veroordeling uitvoerbaar bij voorraad;

in de incidenten in beide zaken voorts:

- reserveert de kosten tot de einduitspraak in de hoofdzaken;

in beide hoofdzaken:

- verklaart de Nederlandse rechter internationaal bevoegd tot kennisneming van de vorderingen, meer in het bijzonder ook die in zaak met nummer 200.126.843 (zaak c) tegen SPDC, en bekrachtigt in zoverre de vonnissen waarvan beroep;

- verwijst de zaak naar de rol van 22 maart 2016 voor het indienen door Milieudefensie c.s. van een memorie van grieven fase 2.

Aldus gewezen door mrs. J.M. van der Klooster, S.A. Boele en S.J. Schaafsma en uitgesproken ter openbare terechtzitting van 18 december 2015 in aanwezigheid van de griffier.

___________________________________________

Translation in English

Civil-law sector

Case numbers : 200.126.843 (case c) + 200.126.848 (case d)

Case / Cause list numbers : C/09/337058 / HA ZA 09-1581 (case c) +

C/09/365482 / HA ZA 10-1665 (case d)

Judgment of 18 December 2015 in the cases of

1. Eric Barizaa DOOH,

of Goi, Rivers State, Federal Republic of Nigeria,

2. VERENIGING MILIEUDEFENSIE,

with its registered office in Amsterdam,

appellants in the principal appeal and respondents in the cross-appeal, as well as claimants in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP and respondents in the motion contesting jurisdiction,

attorney: Ch. Samkalden, LL.M. (Amsterdam),

v. (case c - 200.126.843)

1. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC.,

with its registered office in London, UK, and headquarters in The Hague,

2. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LTD.,

with its registered office in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Federal Republic of Nigeria,

respondents in the principal appeal and appellants in the cross-appeal, as well as respondents in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP and claimants in the motion contesting jurisdiction,

attorney: J. de Bie Leuveling Tjeenk, LL.M. (Amsterdam),

and v. (case d - 200.126.848)

1. SHELL PETROLEUM N.V.,

with its registered office in The Hague,

2. THE ‘SHELL’ TRANSPORT AND TRADING COMPANY LTD.,

with its registered office in London, UK,

respondents in the principal appeal and appellants in the cross-appeal, as well as respondents in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP,

attorney: J. de Bie Leuveling Tjeenk, LL.M. (Amsterdam).

The first party are referred to as: Eric Dooh and Milieudefensie, together: Milieudefensie et al.; the second party as: RDS, SPDC, Shell Petroleum and Shell T&T, together: Shell. RDS and SPDC are often referred to together as RDS et al. RDS, Shell Petroleum and Shell T&T are referred to, both jointly and severally, as ‘the parent company’.

case c - 200.126.843

Milieudefensie et al. have instituted proceedings against RDS et al. by issuing two notices of appeal on 1 May 2013, stating their appeal against the judgment rendered on 30 January 2013 by the District Court at Den Haag [The Hague] in the case between it and RDS et al. and the preceding interim judgment given on 14 September 2011. On the first hearing date -21 May 2013 - RDS et al. were declared in default of appearance. After Milieudefensie et al. had served a summons to appear on RDS et al. on 31 May 2013, RDS et al. did appear in court.

case d - 200.126.848

Milieudefensie et al. appealed on 1 May 2013 against the judgment pronounced on 30 January 2013 by the District Court at Den Haag [The Hague] in the case between it and Shell Petroleum and Shell T&T and the preceding interim judgment given on 14 September 2011.

furthermore, in both cases:

The following documents have been exchanged in the case:

- a motion for the production of evidence (containing exhibits) filed by Milieudefensie et al.;

- a defence to the motion pursuant to art. 843(a) Code of Civil Procedure (‘CCP’) also containing a motion contesting jurisdiction filed by Shell (in case c, addition Court of Appeal) (with exhibits) by Shell;

- a defence to the motion contesting jurisdiction in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP filed by Milieudefensie et al.

Subsequently, a personal appearance of the parties was held in these and four interrelated cases. The four interrelated cases are referred to as case a (200.126.804), case b (200.126.834), case e (200.126.849) and case f (200.127.813). During this hearing procedural arrangements have been made, which entail, in so far as they are relevant to this case, that first of all (‘stage 1’) a decision will be given on (i) the jurisdiction of the Dutch court (where in dispute), (ii) the absence or otherwise of valid notices of appeal in case (c), and (iii) the claims by Milieudefensie et al. pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP (including the appeal by Milieudefensie et al. against the interim judgment of 14 September 2011, which largely dismissed its then action pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP), as well as the defences put up by Shell against these claims, which include (iv) the issue of admissibility of Milieudefensie’s claim and (v) the issue of admissibility of Eric Dooh’s claim or, as the case may be, his right of action. In accordance with the arrangements made at the hearing the following documents have been submitted:

- by Shell: a statement of appeal stage 1 (in case f) also cross appeal stage 1 (in cases a through e) (with exhibits);

- by Milieudefensie et al.: a statement of appeal re the dismissal of the motion for the production of evidence pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP (with exhibits);

- by Milieudefensie et al. in case c: a document commenting on the notice of appeal (with

exhibit);

- by Shell: a statement of defence stage 1 (in cases a through e) also statement of defence in the cross appeal stage 1 (in case f) and a reply to the document commenting on the notice of appeal (in case c) (with exhibits, including a deed of deposit of documents (exhibit 53));

- by Milieudefensie et al.: a statement of defence on appeal to the statement of appeal

filed by Shell (stage 1) (with exhibits).

Subsequently the attorneys for both parties have pleaded in all cases in stage 1, submitting memoranda of oral pleading. On that occasion Shell submitted exhibits (exhibit 54 in cases a through d and exhibit 55 in cases c and d), and the attorney for Milieudefensie et al. submitted some photographic prints. After the pleadings a date was set to deliver judgment.

introduction

The reason for the dispute was an oil spill from a hole in a subterraneous 24 inch oil pipeline near the village of Goi in Ogoniland, in Rivers State, a state in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. An estimated quantity of approximately 150 barrels of oil leaked from this hole, in addition to which an oil fire raged locally. Milieudefensie et al. assert that the fault of the spillage and the resulting damage - or more precisely: the (environmental) damage to the fish ponds and agricultural land used by Eric Dooh / Eric Dooh’s father - is due to wrongful acts and negligence of (i) SPDC as operator of the pipeline, but also of (ii) RDS as head of the Shell Group and, via group companies, shareholder in SPDC, and of (iii) Shell Petroleum and Shell T&T, who formerly jointly played this role of parent company/indirect shareholder. The claims instigated on these grounds by Milieudefensie et al. seek to hold Shell liable for the (consequential) damages, and to have Shell ordered to remedy the soil and water pollution and make provisions for the prevention of new leakages and environmental damages. The District Court dismissed all claims, ruling that the spill resulted from sabotage - in the shape of a 46 cm long saw-cut in the upper side of the pipeline between the twelve o’clock and two o’clock positions - and not, as Milieudefensie et al. had primarily asserted, from insufficient maintenance (corrosion). The appeal lies against this dismissal and the underlying grounds given.

As discussed with the parties during the hearing, in this interim judgment only a number of partial aspects will be reviewed, namely: (i) the renewed motion for the production of exhibits pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP by Milieudefensie et al.; (ii) the grounds of appeal contesting the (grounds stated for the) dismissal of its earlier motion to produce those documents; (iii) the defences put up by Shell against those claims and (iv) Shell’s grounds of appeal contesting the dismissal of a number of those defences by the court. The latter defences, which are also directed to the claims in the principal cases, concern the international jurisdiction of the Dutch court, the admissibility of Milieudefensie’s claim and the admissibility of Eric Dooh’s claim and his right of action. Another (procedural) issue submitted on appeal by Shell is the validity of the notices of appeal in case c. This issue will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of the other defences and finally the motion pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP. This judgment on appeal reviews the procedural issues raised by either party, therefore, but also relates to some aspects relevant to the principal cases.

First it is noted that there is now consensus between the parties on the law applicable, in the sense that all claims, including those against the parent company, must be assessed according to Nigerian law, being the law of the state where (i) the spill occurred, (ii) the ensuing damage occurred and (iii) where SPDC, whose activities were allegedly monitored insufficiently, has its registered office (cf. art. 3 Conflict of Laws (Torts) Act 2001 applicable here). Accordingly, it is assumed in this judgment that Nigerian law is applicable. The parties also agree that procedural matters are excepted, as Dutch law is applicable as lex fori in respect of those matters (cf. 10:3 Civil Code (‘CC’)). Besides, in some matters, such as the change of corporate management, the applicable law incorporation law is relevant.

A second consideration beforehand is that the Court of Appeal does not take into account the spill(s) in 2003, also referred to by Milieudefensie et al., and in the context of the motion pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP only decides on the spill referred to in 1.1 above of 10 October 2004. Although it seems that Milieudefensie’s et al. 3rd ground for appeal was directed against this, after Shell’s response to it they did not repeat it on the occasion of their oral pleadings, when they asserted without reservation - when sketching the background to the dispute - that the spill from the pipeline occurred near Goi in 2004; which ties in with their earlier assertion that the issue in these cases is ‘an oil spill from a pipeline near the village of Goi in Nigeria.’ It is therefore assumed at this stage of the proceedings, just like in the first instance, that the dispute concerns the spill of 10 October 2004.

the validity of the notices of appeal in case c

In case c (no. 200.126.843) final judgment was delivered on 30 January 2013, just as in case d (200.126.848) and the interrelated cases a (200.126.804), b (200.126.834),

e (200.126.849) and f (200.127.813). The deadline for appeal in all these cases was, therefore, 1 May 2013 (art. 339(1) CCP in conjunction with art. 1(1) and art. 3(1) General Extension of Time Limits Act). On that day SPDC had a notice of appeal served in case f, in the manner referred to in art. 63 CCP, and ten copies of notices of appeal were served to the office address of Shell’s attorney by an (assigned junior) bailiff on the request of Milieudefensie et al. According to Shell, they included:

- two notices of appeal in case a (200.126.804);

- four notices of appeal in case b (200.126.834);

- two notices of appeal in case d (200.126.848);

- two notices of appeal in case e (200.126.849).

In this total of ten notices of appeal they were summoned to appear on 21 May 2013. On that day Shell’s attorney presented himself as counsel in cases a, b, d, and e, but not in case c, because according to Shell no notice of appeal had been received in that case. Case c had, however, been entered on the cause list on the basis of an original of the notice of appeal, drawn up by the bailiff and made available to Milieudefensie et al. after he had served the ten notices of appeal, for which reason RDS et al. were declared to be in default in case c. After this leave to proceed in default of appearance Milieudefensie et al. served a writ on RDS et al. to appear in court on 31 May 2013, appending (a copy of) the original writ made available to Milieudefensie et al. dated 1 May 2013 and maintaining the summons explicitly. RDS et al. then did appear, but have subsequently primarily adopted the position that the notice of appeal in case c was not served in due time, and that therefore the appeal in that case has not been instituted (art. 343 CCP). It points out that the Bailiffs’ Division in the District Court at Amsterdam has taken disciplinary action against the bailiff, on the ground that: ‘Delivery of the original writ by a bailiff to his client, which states that a copy thereof has been presented to the person referred to in it, whereas it is not established that this copy has in fact been delivered to this person, is a serious disciplinary offence. In legal transactions one must be able to rely on that what a bailiff states in his writ within the limits of the powers conferred on him, is true without a shadow of a doubt. This not being the case, the court will decide as follows in the matter of [the bailiff, addition Court of Appeal].’ RDS et al. also point out that the statutory deadline for appeal is a matter of public order.

The latter is undeniably true. It is not true, however, that the notice of appeal was not served within the deadline. The following reasons are given.

- Assuming RDS et al.’s version of events, four separate notices of appeal were served in case b, which has (only) two respondents.

- RDS et al. do not contest that this is unusual.

- Moreover, the service occurred at the offices of the attorney, pursuant to art. 63 CCP, which offices have a special department for dealing with the cause list administration, which, according to RDS et al., immediately noticed the peculiarity that of the ten notices of appeal, judging by the letter, four concerned case b and not one case c; without this leading to a request for clarification to the bailiff’s office, Milieudefenise et al. or its attorney.

- There is no plausible explanation why Milieudefensie should wish to appeal against all dismissals, particularly in cases d and e but not in case c (which is closely related to case d).

- Neither is it evident that RDS et al. assumed that Milieudefensie et al. had decided not to appeal in case c. The Court of Appeal adds, but as an aside, that there are rather clues to the contrary, i.e. that RDS et al. assumed that an appeal had been lodged in case c as well, for Milieudefensie et al. pointed to the announcement published on Shell’s website within days of the service of the notices of appeal under the heading: ‘Response from Mutiu Sunmonu’ and the sub heading: ‘Response from Mutiu Sunmonu (Managing Director SPDC) to the appeal lodged by three Nigerian farmers together with Milieudefensie, in court cases against Shell they lost in January.’ The response included the following passage: ‘We are disappointed that Milieudefensie has decided to appeal against the judgment. [..] We will now fight the court’s adoption of international jurisdiction to hear the claims against SPDC. [..] We believe that allegations made by Nigerian claimants who have a dispute with a Nigerian company about matters that took place in Nigeria should be submitted to a Nigerian court.’ Reading this announcement one should bear in mind that of the four Nigerian claimants in the interrelated cases a through f there was only one, namely F.A. Akpan, who had ‘won’ a court case against Shell, or more specifically: SPDC, albeit in parts, and who had not appealed; so that it is likely that the ‘three Nigerian farmers’ who had lost cases against Shell, or more particularly: SPDC, refers to: F.A. Oguru, A. Efanga (the Nigerian claimants in cases a and b) and Eric Dooh (the Nigerian claimant in cases c and d). On this assumption it is not likely that SPDC’s managing director responded with disappointment to the appeal lodged by ‘three Nigerian farmers’ if SPDC believed that one of those ‘three Nigerian farmers’, namely Eric Dooh, had refrained from appealing against the dismissal of the claims against SPDC (and RDS) in case c (the claims in case d are not brought against SPDC).

The aforesaid facts and circumstances do not reasonably allow another conclusion than that out of the four identical notices of appeal dated 1 May 2013 apparently two were intended as notices of appeal in case c, but that the bailiff mistakenly left behind two (extra) copies of the writs served simultaneously in case d. In this regard this instance should be equated with and assessed as an instance in which two of the writs contain a slip of the pen, in the sense that they mistakenly contain the names of the appellants in case b instead of those in case c, and that, also mistakenly, the cause list/case numbers of the judgment in case b are written instead of those in case c. As this is an apparent mistake, also apparent as such to RDS et al., it can only be the court’s view that RDS et al. knew or should reasonably have known that Milieudefensie et al. intended to seek the remedy of an appeal on 1 May 2013, therefore within the appeal period, in case c, as well (cf. HR 7 July 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1844). It has neither been argued nor has it become evident that the interest of RDS et al. has been prejudiced unreasonably as a result of this mistake - or its correction, as made by the 31 May 2013 writ. Relevant is also that Milieudefensie et al. did not learn until after the cause list hearing of 21 May 2013, and this has not been disputed, of Shell´s position that no notice of appeal had been served in case c, so that the writ has at least been served within 14 days of this discovery. Therefore, there are insufficient grounds to declare the notices of appeal void, just as there are insufficient grounds for declaring that Milieudefensie et al. have no case due to an alleged lack of validly served writs. Moreover, any other conclusion would fundamentally infringe the right of access to the Court of Appeal for an error made by the bailiff whose services Milieudefensie et al. had hired.

international jurisdiction of the Dutch court over the claims against SPDC

The District Court based its international jurisdiction regarding the claims against SPDC, with its statutory seat in Nigeria, on art. 7(1) CCP ( multiple defendants). Proceeding on the jurisdiction of the Dutch court regarding co-defendant RDS, which is not in dispute (pursuant to art. 2(1) in conjunction with art. 60(1) Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, hereinafter: the Brussels I Regulation), pursuant to that provision (art. 7 (1) CCP) this jurisdiction also exists with regard to SPDC, ‘provided the claims against the various defendants are connected to the extent that reasons of efficiency justify a joint hearing’. The District Court found that they are connected, despite SPDC’s contentions. Other contentions in this regard, also dismissed by the District Court, were, in brief, that Milieudefensie et al. allegedly abused procedural law - as the claims against RDS were obviously bound to fail and for that reason could not serve as a basis for jurisdiction as provided in art. 7(1) CCP - and that (in the analogy of the judgment of the European Court of Justice 1 December 2011, C-145/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798Painer) the claims against the various defendants had different legal bases, while SPDC could not foresee that they would be summoned in this country.

Although SPDC repeated all these contentions on appeal, it concluded in the final analysis that the test that should be applied is whether the claims against RDS could possibly be awarded, which SPDC did not believe is possible because the spill (of 10 October 2004) had occurred before RDS became in charge of the Shell Group on 20 July 2005. This circumstance does not mean that RDS’s liability for the consequences of a failure [of supervision] of the previous group management and/or obligation to prevent new spills and clean up the existing pollution can be excluded straightaway. There is also the argument by Milieudefensie et al., about which the District Court has not given an opinion, that the merger of Shell Petroleum and Shell T&T into the new ‘umbrella’ or parent company RDS - the unification process, which at first glance looks similar to the triangular merger under Dutch law, cf. art. 2:309 in conjunction with art. 2:333(a) CC - is first and foremost a ‘paper transition’, here abused by RDS to avoid liability. This argument, if not abandoned on appeal, must be assessed against the applicable incorporation law and requires further (factual) investigation, which is not yet at issue. As far as the test referred to by SPDC is concerned (mentioned in the first sentence of 3.2 above), this is implicit in the requirement of connection as provided in art. 7(1) CCP. If it is clear in advance that the claims against RDS (the so-called ‘anchor claims’) are obviously bound to fail and for that reason cannot possibly be allowed, it is hard to imagine that reasons of efficiency nonetheless justify a joint hearing. There is no question of a claim that is ‘certain to fail’, however, now that it cannot be ruled out in advance that a parent company may, in certain circumstances, be liable for damages resulting from acts or omissions of a (sub)subsidiary. Incidentally, SPDC did not argue the opposite; it only believed, predominantly for reasons of fact, that such circumstances do not present themselves here, just as the District Court ruled, but this will be the subject in dispute in the next stage of the appeal (hereinafter: stage 2), while it has not yet been established that SPDC is right and that, for example, RDS is also exempt from liability under Nigerian law if, as Milieudefensie et al. argue, the spill and the ensuing damage were the foreseeable consequence of a maintenance / corrosion problem due to systematic failure of SPDC, which the parent company had been aware of for a long time, but did not do anything about, although it could very well have done so on the basis of knowledge, possibilities and means. Considering the foreseeable serious consequences of oil spills to the local environment from a potential spill source, it cannot be ruled out from the outset that the parent company may be expected in such a case to take an interest in preventing spills (or in other words, that there is a duty of care in accordance with the criteria set out in Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2, [1990] 1 All ER 56), the more so if it has made the prevention of environmental damage by the activities of group companies a spearhead and is, to a certain degree, actively involved in and managing the business operations of such companies, which is not to say that without this attention and involvement a violation of the duty of care is unthinkable and that culpable negligence with regard to the said interests can never result in liability. This is not altered by the fact that, as Shell argues, there are no decisions by Nigerian courts in which group liability is accepted on these grounds, for this does not mean that Nigerian law by definition provides no basis for assuming (a violation of) a duty of care to the parent company under those circumstances, for instance in the context of cleaning up pollution and preventing repeated spills. As Nigerian law as a common law system is based on English law, and common law, especially English case-law are important sources of Nigerian law, a basis could also be found in decisions such as in the case of Chandler v Cape [2012] EWCA Civ 525. That the latter decision -which does not exclude that other circumstances than those presenting themselves in that case may lead to a duty of care for the parent company- cannot constitute a precedent (to the detriment of RDS) in any respect in such circumstances as set out above is not an established fact, and, particularly, does not follow from the later decision in Thompson v The Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635 about a case that was not similar in all respects, as it concerned a pure holding company, with subsidiaries performing greatly diverging operational activities - cf. on the one hand point 33 of the latter decision (about the scope of Chandler v Cape): ‘It is clear that Arden LJ intended this formulation to be descriptive of circumstances in which a duty might be imposed rather than exhaustive of the circumstances in which a duty may be imposed.’ and on the other hand point 36 (about the divergence): ‘The mere recitation of these factors demonstrates how far removed from Chandler v Cape is this case.’ It seems that the decision in Thompson v The Renwick Group Plc indicates that a clear correlation is required between the damage incurred and the role the parent company played within the group; the crux according to Tomlinson LJ being that there is a situation in which the parent company, due to ‘its superior knowledge or expertise’ ’is better placed’ to intervene (point 37). Whether such a situation has arisen -which Shell challenges, with substantiation, for instance by pointing out the degree of discretion of the operating company in applying standards not prescribed by the parent company- and whether in other respects sufficient support can be found in Chandler v Cape will be assessed, if necessary, after further debate in stage 2 of the appeal. Point of departure in the application of Nigerian law will then be, amongst other things, that it is not up to a Dutch court to start an entirely new legal development in Nigerian law. For now this issue can wait.

In other respects, too, SPDC’s challenge to the connection between the claims assumed by the District Court and the efficiency of a joint hearing are unfounded. This is explained in more detail below. First of all the Court of Appeal will briefly dwell on the meaning of art. 7(1) CCP as a ground of jurisdiction if there is more than one defendant. According to the legislative history this ground of jurisdiction is prompted by reasons of efficiency and procedural economy. In order to prevent that this jurisdiction (to be derived from the fact that there is more than one defendant) is exorbitant if the various claims are not connected, the Dutch legislator has incorporated European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) case law about art. 6(1) of the Brussels Convention (codified in art. 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation) in art. 7(1) CCP (ECJ 27 September 1988, C-189/87, ECLI:EU:C:1988:459Kalfelis/Bank Schröder), ‘so that there is no deviation from art. 6 point 1 Brussels Convention’. With reference to Supreme Court (‘HR’) 27 October 1978, NJ 1980, 102 and HR 16 May 1986, NJ 1987, 456 it is added that the connection referred to here is considered to be present if ‘reasons of efficiency justify a joint hearing’ (Parliamentary Papers II 1999/2000 26855 no. 3, p. 37). As the Dutch legislator meant to be in keeping with art. 6(1) Brussels I Regulation (now art. 8(1) EC Regulation no. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) the present question of jurisdiction shall be assessed by testing it against this regulation as well. Other European Court of Justice case law with regard to this alternative ground of jurisdiction is also relevant. Below, the court will first address whether a joint hearing is efficient within the meaning of art. 7(1) CCP.

Considering: (i) that between defendants, held liable as the joint and several parties at fault, there exists a group link, in which the acts and omissions of SPDC as a group company play an important role in the assessment of the liability/obligation, if any, of RDS as top holding; (ii) that the claim lodged against them is identical and (iii) has the same factual basis, in the sense that it concerns the same spill, while (iv) the discussion about the facts largely focuses on questions such as what caused the spill and whether enough was done to prevent it and to remedy the consequences, in relation to which (v) possibly further investigations are required, (vi) which investigation is preferably carried out by one single court to avoid divergent findings and assessments, the conclusion must be that the claims against RDS and those against SPDC are connected to the extent that reasons of efficiency justify a joint hearing, as referred to in art. 7(1) CCP. In this regard it should be noted here, perhaps superfluously, that if the Dutch court is declared to have no jurisdiction over the claims against SPDC, the same body of facts still has to be adjudicated in this country, for it is the basis of the claims against RDS as well.

As regards the test against art. 6(1) Brussels I Regulation, considering the aspects referred to just now, the claims against RDS and SPDC are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. In order for judgments to be regarded as irreconcilable there must arise, in the context of the same situation of fact and law, a divergence in the outcome of the dispute. In the present case there is ‘the same situation of fact and law’ (constituting a risk of irreconcilable judgments if dealt with separately), as the case constitutes possible liability under Nigerian law of two group companies -a parent company and a (sub)subsidiary- for (failure to prevent) the same oil spill and inadequately cleaning the same pollution. It is added that no circumvention of the rule of jurisdiction laid down in art. 6(1) has been established; there is no sufficient evidence on the basis of which it can be concluded that Milieudefensie et al. artificially fulfilled, or prolonged the fulfilment of, the applicability of this ground of jurisdiction (cf. ECJ 21 May 2015, C-352/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:335CDC/Akzo); there is no question of anchor claims which are certain to fail, as referred to above.

The above does not change because the legal bases of the claims against SPDC and RDS differ, or at least do not coincide altogether (cf., inter alia, ECJ 11 October 2007, C-98/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:595Freeport/Arnoldson). Also incorrect is the contention based on the Painer judgment referred to before that it was not foreseeable for SPDC that they would be summoned before a another court than the Nigerian court, or as the case may be, before a Dutch court (irrespective of whether this requirement is applicable in the context of art. 7(1) CCP); in the light of (i) the ongoing developments in the field of foreign direct liability claims (cf. the cases instituted in the USA against Shell for the alleged involvement of the company in human rights violations; Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco (09-15641); Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), as well as Lubbe v. Cape Plc. [2000] UKHL 41), added to (ii) the many oil spills that occurred annually during the extraction of oil in Nigeria, (iii) the legal actions that have been conducted for many years about this (for over 60 years according to Shell), (iv) the problems these oil spills present to humans and the environment and (v) the increased attention for such problems, it must have been reasonably foreseeable for RDS as parent and SPDC as operational division of the Shell group that in the long run RDS could be targeted, in which case SPDC, which had been taken to court in Nigeria before, could well be summoned before a court with jurisdiction with regard to RDS. As an aside it is pointed out in this regard that SPDC has been taken to court in the UK for other spills (spills from the same pipeline between 2008 and 2009, but then near the village of Bodo): The Bodo Community and Others v SPDC [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC). The SPDC did not contest the jurisdiction of the UK courts, as it says that the spills concerned were ‘operational spills’ for which it accepted liability. The foreseeability in question, however, does not stand or fall with whether or not SPDC accepts liability. The SPDC’s contention that the spills in the present case occurred in Nigeria and that Nigerian law is applicable to them, so that the case had best be assessed by a court in its home country, Nigeria, carries insufficient weight compared to the aspects pleading in favour of a joint hearing.

In what was considered above is embedded that there is no question of abuse of procedural law (art. 7(1) CCP); more particularly it is not likely that the proceedings against RDS are in fact fake proceedings for the sole purpose of depriving SPDC of its natural forum on the basis of claims against RDS that were certain to fail from the outset. Neither is it a factor that art. 7(1) CCP does not set a domicile requirement for one of the defendants, and that for this reason in a case like the present one an (extra) anti-abuse test should be applied in the assessment of the connection between the claims, for RDS has domicile in this country (art. 60(1) Brussels I Regulation).

The conclusion following from the above should be, therefore, that the requirement of sufficient connection as referred to in art. 7(1) CCP is met, also to the extent that this provision was meant to tie in with art. 6(1) Brussels I Regulation. Art. 7(1) CCP constituted sufficient basis for conferring international jurisdiction upon Dutch courts in relation to the claims against SPDC. Furthermore, it is not correct that once adopted, international jurisdiction under art. 7(1) CCP ceases to exist if the anchor claim proves to be unfounded. The connection referred to in art. 7(1) CCP must be present when the proceedings are initiated in the first instance; international jurisdiction then existing on that ground cannot change in the course of the proceedings, except in special circumstances, which are not at issue here. Any other opinion goes against the so-called principle of perpetuatio fori (cf. Court of Appeal at Den Haag, 30 November 2010, ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2010:BP3078).

Therefore, Shell’s first ground in the cross-appeal in case c fails; the Dutch court has international jurisdiction over the claims in the principal case against SPDC and therefore also of the motion for the production of evidence against SPDC pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP.

international jurisdiction of the Dutch court over the claims against the parent company

Shell Petroleum is a company with its registered office in this country, for which reason the Dutch court has jurisdiction (under art. 2(1) of the Brussels I Regulation) to hear a claim instigated against Shell Petroleum. With regard to RDS, not having its registered office in this country, the court has jurisdiction pursuant to art. 2(1) in conjunction with art. 60(1) Brussels I Regulation; and with regard to Shell T&T, also not having its registered office in this country, the court has jurisdiction if not pursuant to art. 6(1), then pursuant to art. 24 Brussels I Regulation.

admissibility of Milieudefensie’s claim

Shell contests Milieudefensie’s right of action based on art. 3:305 (old) CC (ground 2 of the cross appeal). Shell regards the question who can institute a class action to protect the interests of others as a question of substantive law that should be assessed pursuant to the lex causae, in this case Nigerian law, which according to Shell does not provide a basis for such action. This opinion cannot be accepted as correct.

Generally, for a claim to be admissible the claimant is required to have his own, direct interest in the claim instituted (cf. art. 3:296, art. 3:302 and art. 3:303 CC). An addition to this is art. 3:305(a) CC, in the sense that a foundation or an association with full legal capacity can institute an action if it is intended to protect similar interests of other persons to the extent that its articles promote such interests. This option to institute a class action has both a substantive and a procedural aspect. As regards the substantive aspect one may consider whether a material entitlement arises in case of violation of the (environmental) interests promoted by the foundation/association, for instance under an action based on an unlawful act. This question, just as the question of validity/allowability, is answered by the law that governs the action (wrongful act), i.e. the lex causae. However, the question wether this right to action can be enforced in a class action as well as by or on behalf of the person entitled -and if so, to what extent and how- must be characterized under Dutch international private law as a procedural matter, to which the lex fori processus -so Dutch law- is applicable. A negative answer to this question of procedural law would mean the case would evade the assessment of the court. This is not the case here, however, as art. 3:305(a) CC provides for the possibility of a class action. Another question is whether Milieudefensie as an interest group has full legal capacity. That this last question should be answered in the affirmative under the applicable law of the country in which the legal person was incorporated is in not in dispute.

Apart from the above, pursuant to the information available at this point about Nigerian law it seems that a class action (as public interest) by an interest group such as Milieudefensie is also possible under Nigerian law, and that a lack of locus standi cannot be alleged against Milieudefensie, but this is just mentioned as an aside (cf. Fawehinmi v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) 23 WRN 65 and cf. also the preamble to the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules of 11 November 2009).

Nor do the other grounds for inadmissibility of Milieudefensie’s claim advanced by Shell provide sufficient basis. The District Court considered and rejected those grounds in ground 4.5 of the interim judgment of 14 September 2011 and in grounds 4.13 and 4.14 of the final judgment of 30 January 2013. Those grounds for the decision are correct and must be considered to be repeated here and form part of this judgment. The following is added to them. For the admissibility of an action under art. 3:305(a) CC it is not an absolute condition that the claim cannot be achieved in any other way -nor is it in its present version in force since 1 July 2013; in the present case for instance via a class action instituted by all members of the Goi community, or via a representative action instituted by a number of those members for themselves and on behalf of other persons. It is a condition, however, that the claim seeks to protect similar interests of other persons. This requirement is satisfied if the interests that the action seeks to protect are suitable to be joined, so that an efficient and effective safeguarding of legal rights can be promoted for the benefit of the interested parties. In this manner the matters in dispute and claims advanced in the proceedings can be reviewed in one action, without having to take into consideration the special circumstances of the interested parties individually, such as the procedural implications if one of them dies, or at least without these dominating the debate and/or determining its outcome. That the interests which the action seeks to protect -to be more precise: the interest in establishing liability, cleaning the pollution and preventing new damages- are suited to being combined, is, rightly, not challenged. Nor is the District Court’s opinion challenged that the claims relating to this do exceed the individual interest of Eric Dooh (or Eric Dooh’s father). Nor is it true that the group of individuals for the benefit of whom this action has been instituted is so small and clearly defined that it was easy to initiate litigation in the names of the interested parties. Furthermore, Shell’s plea that the environmental interests of those affected by the spill in question are insufficiently safeguarded by Milieudefensie’s action is wrong or at least insufficiently substantiated; the condition that the interests of the persons represented must be ‘sufficiently safeguarded’ is meant to serve as a handle for the critical assessment of admissibility in those cases where the motives for instituting a class action are in doubt. This prevents claims organizations to abuse the right to class action for their own commercial motives. This is not to say that an organization with no or few supporters among the circle of those who have a direct interest by definition cannot fulfil this condition. The parliamentary history quotes the example of the Dutch Consumers’ Association, asking the court in a class action to prohibit an unfair commercial practice. The case is taken to court on behalf of every consumer who could potentially be affected by this commercial practise. Even if a minority of consumers are actually a member or are affiliated to the Consumers’ Association there is no doubt that the interests of the larger group of consumers are sufficiently safeguarded. Nor is there any reason to doubt the ultimate object of Milieudefensie to realize a cleaner environment in situ; to which a further clean-up of (possibly) still existing and the prevention of new oil spills are relevant. It is pointed out as an aside that the condition that the interests of the persons represented must be ‘sufficiently safeguarded’ has replaced the requirement of representativeness proposed originally, and that in that proposal non-profit organizations and environmental and animal welfare organizations did not have to comply with this requirement. It is unlikely that this point of view has since changed.

Shell’s suggestion that Milieudefensie does not have enough knowledge and skills for the present environmental action lacks proper substantiation; that Milieudefensie neither works nor is established in the area is insufficient. For instance, there is no evidence of a relevant knowledge deficit compared to the Nigerian claimants who do live in the area, with whom Milieudefensie works together, moreover. Another argument advanced by Shell that the declaratory decision requested by Milieudefensie et al. provides no basis for a claim for damages against SPDC in the Netherlands, just as it does not in Nigeria, as under Nigerian law the time limit for a claim for damages has expired, carries no weight, either, as Milieudefensie et al.’s claims are in any case more comprehensive. No decision needs to be made, therefore, on whether this argument is correct. Other arguments submitted by Shell but dismissed by the District Court on the grounds stated earlier are: (i) that the action under art. 3:305(a) CC is not intended for the promotion by a Dutch interest group of a purely local interest abroad which is not linked in any way to the Dutch domestic jurisdiction, (ii) that Milieudefensie’s object clause in the articles of association is not specific enough to include the protection of the environment around Goi, (iii) that Milieudefensie does not perform any activities locally, and (iv) that the Goi community objects to Milieudefensie’s actions. The Court of Appeal adds the following to the discussion and dismissal of these four arguments by the District Court. There are no good grounds for a restriction of the scope of application of art. 3:305(a) CC as proposed by Shell in its first argument. Moreover, there is a sufficient link with the Dutch domestic jurisdiction, namely to the extent that the existence and scope of the duty of care of the parent company having its headquarters in the Netherlands have been submitted for review. This is not affected by the fact that this review will occur under Nigerian law. The arguments (ii) and (iii) do not succeed because sufficient ties exist between Milieudefensie’s object clause in the articles of association and its claim, while it has also undertaken enough activities, such as, inter alia, campaigning, organizing rallies, carrying out investigations, etc. The last argument (iv) concerning the alleged objections of the Goi community has been negated sufficiently by Milieudefensie by the statements submitted on her part and is not decisive in other respects, either, in view of the provision of art. 3:305(a)(5) CC.

The conclusion is that this ground fails.

admissibility and right to action of Eric Dooh

At this stage of the proceedings Shell has submitted three arguments against the admissibility of Eric Dooh’s claim and his right to action:

( a) Eric Dooh’s father has not proved that he became the exclusive owner or exclusive possessor of the lands, plants and fish ponds that were allegedly damaged; the same is true for Eric Dooh as his possible successor in title;

( b) Eric Dooh has not proved that he is his father’s sole heir or has become entitled in any other way to the claims instituted by his father in the court of first instance;

( c) Eric Dooh’s father’s claims were extinguished by the latter’s death.

These arguments have been advanced by Shell in both the claim under art. 843(a) CP to be adjudicated now (in stage 1) (the appeal against the District Court’s judgment re this claim, respectively), and in the principal case, which will be adjudicated in stage 2. All these pleas are to argue that Eric Dooh’s claims for damages etc. cannot be sustained and that for that reason the claim under art. 843(a) CCP cannot be upheld either. However, it is not up to the court deciding about a claim under art. 843(a) CCP to decide, as to the merits and finally, about (aspects of) the principal claim. It suffices for now that Eric Dooh has demonstrated prima facie that his relationship to the contaminated fish ponds and lands is such that on that account he can legitimately claim damages from the party possibly responsible for the pollution. The defences referred to in 5.1 above will be assessed against this background. First defence 5.1(c) will be discussed, as it has the widest implications.

Shortly before the pleadings served in stage 1 on 12 March 2015 Shell entered into evidence a judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria at Port Harcourt dated 6 December 2013. It ruled that the action instituted in Nigeria against SPDC by Barizaah M.T. Dooh, (Eric Dooh’s father) was an action in personam and not in rem; this because these proceedings strictly concern oil pollution damage to his properties (fish ponds and lands) and for this reason terminated at his death (on 14 January 2012); for which reason Eric Dooh’s application to be allowed to take over these proceedings was dismissed. This judgment, which qualifies for recognition under art. 431 CP, implies that Eric Dooh’s appeal is inadmissible, according to Shell.

On the basis of this, it must be stated first and foremost that the question whether Eric Dooh, on the assumption that under Nigerian law he has succeeded to the rights of his father, could be substituted as claimant for his deceased father must be assessed under the law of the lex fori, so Dutch law. This question must be answered in the affirmative; if Eric Dooh is the successor in title to his father under Nigerian law in the sense that he is allowed to continue the action instituted by his father, then he was entitled to lodge the present appeal as his legal successor.

Shell argues, however, that the 6 December 2013 judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria implies that the right to action of Eric Dooh’s father against SPDC was extinguished by his death and that therefore Eric Dooh cannot (on appeal) act as his legal successor. This opinion was first advanced during the pleadings in stage 1. Until then Shell had limited itself to the argument that Eric Dooh was not entitled to continue the claim instituted by his deceased father as the latter’s successor in title. Until then Shell had not put forward the defence that Eric Dooh’s father’s claim had extinguished at his death (although the Federal High Court judgment, not submitted in evidence until two weeks before the pleadings, must have been known to SPDC as a party in the case for much longer). The 6 December 2013 judgment strictly addresses the question whether Eric Dooh was entitled to succeed his father in the action before the Federal High Court. This question is answered in the negative. Although the grounds stated by the Federal High Court can be interpreted as ruling that Eric Dooh’s father’s right to action extinguished at his death, this is not completely clear. In order to be able to decide about this with certainty further information about Nigerian law is needed, which is not available now; and Milieudefensie et al. have not had sufficient opportunity to obtain this due to Shell’s late reliance on the Nigerian judgment. Moreover, according to the judgment the issue in this action before the Federal High Court was just the payment of a fixed amount for compensation. It is not clear to what extent the Nigerian judgment is applicable to the present case, in which not only compensation for damages already sustained is sought, but also the recovery of further compensatory damages (which may therefore include damages that occurred after the death of Eric Dooh’s father), and which seeks more, such as an order to clean up the existing pollution and prevent any further contamination. Considering the late hour at which Shell advanced this there is no reason at this point, in stage 1, to investigate this further in the context of the claims under art. 843(a) CCP by, for example, obtaining an expert opinion about Nigerian law. If necessary, this issue may be the subject of (further) debate in stage 2. The conclusion is that this ground advanced by Shell constitutes no reason to dismiss the claim under art. 843(a) CCP.

With regard to the defence advanced by Shell in 5.1 (b) that Eric Dooh has not proved that he is his father’s sole heir or has become entitled in any other way to the claims instituted by his father in the court of first instance, the Court of Appeal finds as follows. From Shell’s defence it may be inferred that it rightfully does not challenge (any longer) that the succession must be assessed pursuant to the relevant Nigerian law; cf. art. 10:145(2) CC in conjunction with art. 3(1) Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons (1989). For the moment Eric Dooh has demonstrated sufficiently that under that law he is the successor in title of the deceased Barizaah M.T. Dooh and has assumed the latter’s rights as regards the claims which are susceptible of transfer, for Eric Dooh has argued with force of argument that succession under Nigerian law is governed predominantly by common law; that in the Niger Delta the general rule is that the first born son (exclusively) inherits his father’s property and possessions; that this has been confirmed with regard to Eric Dooh by the Goi Council of Chiefs and Elders; while Eric Dooh’s father appointed him as his successor in a statement dated 12 May 2011. Shell has not contested all this (or not sufficiently), except by reference to the 6 December 2013 judgment of Federal High Court of Nigeria, which is not (or not primarily) about succession and which in addition is not regarded as decisive for the reasons set out above. Eric Dooh was, therefore, entitled to lodge the appeal in his own name (cf. artt. 332 and 341 CCP).

Wrong is Shell’s view -defence 5.1 (a)- that Eric Dooh’s right to claim requires that he must have exclusive ownership or exclusive possession of the affected lands and fish ponds. For the right to action under Nigerian law it is decisive whether the claimant’s interest in the lands owned by his family are harmed, for instance because he has the use of this land (cf., inter alia, Balogun Ors v. Akanji Ors [2005] 10 NWLR (Pt. 933) 394, Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited v Edamkue & Ors. [2009] 14 NLWR (Pt. 1160) 1 and Ibator v Barakuro [2007] 9 NWLR 475, and in this context see also the broad definition of art. 11(5)(c) of the Oil Pipelines Act (hereinafter: OPA): ‘The holder of a license shall pay compensation (a) to any person whose land or interest in land [..] is injuriously affected [..] and (b) any person suffering damage by reason of any neglect to protect, maintain or repair [..])’. The assertion by Professor Oditah, who was consulted by Shell, that the claimant must have ‘ownership or possession’ is contested by Akintan JSC in Ibator v. Barakuro, which demonstrates that an ‘occupier (..) of land’ can also institute an action. That this concerns an obiter dictum does not affect the persuasiveness of this quote. Even if Professor Oditah’s assertion was correct, the condition that Eric Dooh’s late father and now Eric Dooh have (had) ‘possession’ seems to be met, for it follows from Ekpan v. Uyo (1986) NWLR (Pt. 26) 63 that ‘possession’ must be understood to mean ‘the occupation or physical control of the land either personally or through an agent or servant’. Eric Dooh and his father have argued, and this has been contested insufficiently, that the father had been utilizing the contaminated (agricultural) land and fish ponds for many years for breeding fish and cultivating crops, so that ‘possession’ can be assumed for the time being.

Furthermore, Shell put up the defence that Eric Dooh still has not demonstrated which agricultural lands and fish ponds are concerned. However, Shell has failed to explain how this contention relates to its earlier assertions, namely (i) that in June 2007 clean-up and repair activities were started in the part of the afflicted area in which the fish ponds Dooh claims to own are situated and (ii) that it has been confirmed by or on behalf of the ‘Landlord’ of the area where the fish ponds Dooh claims to own are situated that the clean-up activities have been completed satisfactorily. These assertions demonstrate sufficient knowledge on the part of Shell of the location meant by Dooh. Moreover, the proceedings do not concern a dispute about proprietary rights regarding the lands and fish ponds in question, and at this stage 1, at least, it does no matter much which lands and fish ponds are involved exactly.

The conclusion is that Shell’s third ground in the cross appeal fails, too.

the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP

Milieudefensie et al. demand inspection of the documents referred to on page 72, items a through o of its statement of appeal concerning the dismissal of the motion to produce documents under art. 843(a) CCP. In part these are documents with which Milieudefensie et al. intend to demonstrate that insufficient maintenance is the cause of the spill rather than sabotage, as the District Court found. Milieudefensie et al. consider clarity about the cause important, because under art. 11(5)(c) OPA SPDC is (strictly) liable if the spill is the result of corrosion/insufficient maintenance, whereas sabotage as cause of the spill constitutes a discharge of liabilities pursuant to that provision, although it is down to SPDC to prove the correctness of that defence. The question which standard of evidence should be applied still seems to be in dispute: ‘preponderance or weight of evidence’ or ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (cf. Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited v. Edamkue & Ors., referred to above, where it presents the opinion of I.F. Ogbuagu, J.S.C. ‘[..] it is now firmly established in a line of decided authorities by this court firstly, that civil cases are proved by preponderance or weight of evidence’ and that of N. Tobi, J.S.C.: ‘The allegation that the spillage was caused by hostile act of some people is an allegation of a criminal act which needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.’). The court in first instance -at first provisionally (in the contested interim judgment) and subsequently finally (in the final judgment)- found that it is sufficiently established that sabotage was the cause of the spill. This opinion is in part decisive for its dismissal of the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP. Milieudefensie et al., who do not agree with the dismissal, therefore complain about this opinion (ground 1 of the appeal).

Following this the Court of Appeal finds that in this stage of the appeal it cannot be established as certain that the hole in the pipeline resulted from sabotage, as described in the Joint Investigation Team report (hereinafter: the JIT report). The Court of Appeal considers that: (i) identifying sabotage as the cause of the damage has been controversial from the start; cf. the fact that not all those involved have signed the JIT report identifying the cause of the damage; (ii) that this JIT report has since been criticized by third parties as well, particularly as concerns the methods of investigation and reporting applied, which criticisms are apparently not easy to contest, not even with the aid of video footage/photographs as they do not prove conclusively that sabotage is the only possible cause of damage; (iii) that this concerns an old pipeline (from 1963) which, after SPDC had left Ogoniland for security reasons, had not been/could not be checked with regard to wall thickness/corrosion by means of intelligent pig runs, (iv) that Shell did not deny that there have been earlier spills and that their own inspections showed ‘that the remaining life of most of the SPDC Oil Trunklines is more or less non-existent or short, while some sections contain major risk and hazard’ and that ‘outright replacement is necessary because extensive corrosion [..]’ and (v) that in 2008 there has been another spill from the 24 inch pipeline in question, a few kilometres away near Bodo, due to a weld defect. It should be added that Milieudefensie et al. pointed out that it turns out from a Shell report from 2003 that the JIT investigations, more particularly their identifying sabotage as a cause of the spills, had been attracting criticism for some time already. On the basis of this it is not immediately clear why the quality of evidence relating to this matter was not paid more attention to.

On the occasion of the pleadings in stage 1 of the appeal the question was raised whether it was not possible to obtain more clarity about the cause of the damage through expert examination, whereby -in as far as this is still useful and safe (approx. 11 years after the incident)- the relevant hole in the pipe wall is subjected to physical inspection. In response, Shell stated that such an inspection is still possible and is a much more obvious way to gather evidence about the cause of the spill, if it is decided on, than producing paperwork. Further to this the Court of Appeal suggests to the parties that, if they decide by mutual consultation that it is expedient to have an expert examination carried out (at the beginning of stage 2) (preferably by three experts), the Court of Appeal will render assistance by delivering, on principle, an interlocutory judgment.

At the present state of affairs there is insufficient cause to order Shell to produce documents on the basis of which Milieudefensie et al. hope to make a plausible case for corrosion/insufficient maintenance as cause of the damage (the corrosion management framework, item g). As Shell argued, which was contested with inadequate substantiation, Milieudefensie et al. already possesses all documents directly relating to the spill in question. It is expected that the documents Milieudefensie et al. demand submission/inspection of can only (very) indirectly shed light on the cause of the spill.

As it is expected that the cause of the spill can be established with more certainty by means of an investigation at the scene of the incident than on the basis of the documents referred to by Milieudefensie et al. -in other words: as it can reasonably be assumed that a proper administration of justice is safeguarded even without the submission of the information requested- there is insufficient evidence of the interest of Milieudefensie et al. in inspection of those documents. Moreover, if expert examination does not confirm sabotage as the cause of the spill, this cause of the damage can in principle be discarded, as a result of which the interest in inspection of the documents in question ceases to exist. Of course it is possible that the experts consider inspection of certain documents useful/necessary for their inquiry. In that case, Shell must cooperate (art. 198(3) CCP).

If in the future it is established that sabotage was indeed the cause of the damage, a decision is still needed in the principal cases about the accusation that Shell was negligent in preventing it. In as far as Milieudefensie et al. require inspection of documents in connection to this accusation, this interest may also cease to exist if sabotage is discarded as a cause of the damage. If this is not the case, it remains to be decided in stage 2 in a further debate between the parties whether in 2004 Shell under Nigerian law had a duty, and if so which one, to prevent sabotage to this subterraneous oil pipeline, which according to Milieudefensie et al. is buried at approximately 60 centimetres, or at least to limit the consequences of such sabotage. What Milieudefensie et al. assert is that Shell, as it is doing now, should have replaced and diverted the pipeline before, and should have provided it with leak detection technology. In stage 2 of the appeal the parties are requested to obtain further information (preferably jointly) about Nigerian law then in force, in the light of, inter alia, SPDC v. Otoko (1990) 6 NLWR (Pt. 159) and the later judgment of the English court in The Bodo Community and Others v. SPDC [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC), in which Justice Akenhead ‘issue 2, whether SPDC can be liable under Section 11(5)(c) of the OPA 1990 to pay just compensation for damage caused by oil from its pipelines that had been released as the result of illegal bunkering and/or illegal refining’ answers as follows: The answer to issue 2 is strictly speaking “No”; there has to be neglect on the part of the licencee. It is conceivable however that neglect by the licencee in the protection of the pipeline (as defined above) which can be proved to be the enabling cause of preventable damage to the pipeline by people illegally engaged in bunkering which causes spillage could give rise to a liability; this may be difficult to prove but there is that theoretical possibility. I cannot at the moment see that damage caused from illegal refining by criminal gangs of crude oil criminally taken from pipelines which have been broken into could fall within a duty “to protect ... any work structure or thing executed under the licence” because (I assume) that the illegal refinery has not been executed under licence by the licencee.’

The District Court has answered the question raised here about the obligation to prevent sabotage with an implicit no as regards the parent company and with an explicit no as regards SPDC. The correctness of the considerations not (yet) contested by appeal grounds are not under assessment here; they may be in a later stage, if, that is, sabotage is found to be the cause of the damage. It may then be of interest how many times such sabotage had occurred to this and possibly other subterraneous pipelines in Ogoniland. The parties may then express a further opinion in the matter; Shell on the basis of the underlying documents (for example the Significant Incidents / High Potential Incidents referred to by Milieudefensie et al. under d.) At the moment there is insufficient reason for an order to produce (other) documents as referred to by Milieudefensie et al. in this context, including: j the surveillance contracts, k helicopter logs, and the other documents specified under l, m and n; quite apart from the fact that Shell claims that it has not (or no longer) the documents in its possession (the forms referred to under o have been produced by Shell as exhibit 53).

Milieudefensie et al. also demand inspection of the documents in relation to its action against the parent company; according to the motion seeking production of documents item 144 ff. this concerns the documents referred to under a through f, but according to the statement of appeal this is possibly expanded to a through i. In this connection the Court of Appeal finds as follows.

Underlying the claim against the parent company is RDS’s failure of supervision of SPDC’s systematic breach of obligations as stated by Milieudefensie et al., or as Milieudefensie et al. put it: ‘[..] the parent company is not blamed for not monitoring compliance with specific procedures, but for noticing that an environmental disaster was occurring in the Niger Delta due to the large number of spills and inadequate clean-up operations and failing to induce SPDC to do something about it’ (emphasis Court of Appeal).

A recurring defence by Shell against the claim to be allowed inspection in the context of the claim as presented is that the parent company did not know about the (condition of the pipeline at the location of) said leak and that the documents demanded do not relate to it. Moreover, some of those documents do not exist according to Shell, particularly the documents under a, e, h, and i. Besides, Shell invokes the serious reason referred to in art. 843(a)(4) CCP that in some cases the documents contain confidential company information. Disclosure is especially undesirable as Milieudefensie is developing a campaign against the Shell group of companies, so that it is to be expected that information produced will be used for yet other proceedings and broadening that campaign, in which campaign, according to Shell, serious accusations are made without any foundation. Shell illustrates this with an example.

The assertion by Shell that the parent company did not know about the spillage and the condition and maintenance of the pipeline locally does not seem to be an adequate defence in all cases, particularly not if sabotage ceases to be a cause of damage. Considering, inter alia, (i) that Shell sets itself goals and ambitions with regard to, for instance, the environment, and has defined a group policy to achieve these goals and ambitions in a coordinated and uniform way, and (ii) that RDS (like the former parent company) monitors compliance with these group standards and this group policy, such questions arise as: (a) which (maintenance) standards applied to an old pipeline whose insides were no longer monitored like the one in question; (b) were these maintenance standards complied with; (c) if so, what is this evidenced by, and if not, shouldn’t this have been noted within the context of the supervision performed by the parent company (the audits); (d) shouldn’t it have been noted with an adequate reporting system in place and (e) why was it not. Another question is (f) whether the parent company -considering the autonomy and individual responsibility of (the management of) SPDC- was sufficiently equipped (as far as knowledge, possibilities and means are concerned) to intervene adequately in case of evident negligence by SPDC.

Milieudefensie et al. have demonstrated their legitimate evidentiary interest in inspection of the documents in question, assuming for now the possibility under Nigerian law under (very) special circumstances of a parent company’s liability for violation of a duty of care. In the following it is considered whether the motion to produce those documents can be allowed on other grounds as well. This involves the documents referred to under a through i. The objection under art. 843(a)(4) CCP brought against the award is addressed in ground 6.11.

Ad a Targets and expenses to the annual business plans re maintenance, environment and safety concerning Ogoniland and Goi from the Business Plans, as well as the monthly business reports concerning these subjects 2000-2004. Shell has asserted that there are no annual business plans or monthly business reports re maintenance, environment and safety concerning the Goi area. Milieudefensie et al. have not responded to this. More particularly, they have not stated that or why this defence of Shell’s is incorrect. Nor have they elaborated on their claim; for which reason it is dismissed. This need not be onerous in view of the awards hereinafter.

Ad b The most recent Audit report at the time of the spill concerning asset integrity as well as the one re environmental and safety policy, with accompanying findings, recommendations and approval and closeout of actions. Shell has asserted that in itself it is correct ‘that compliance with the HSSE policy (HSSE means: Health, Security, Safety and Environment, addition Court of Appeal) within the Royal Shell Group is monitored by means of audits’, but that this does not mean ‘that an audit report exists with regard to the pipeline near Goi or with regard to the Emergency and Oil Spill response, including findings, recommendations and approval and closeout of the litigious spill near Goi.’ Subsequently, Milieudefensie et al., in item 268 of their statement of appeal, have given a further description of the documents in question, namely (in so far as relevant): (i) the at the time of the spill most recent internal Asset Integrity Audit evaluating the technical integrity and -where relevant- the operational integrity of the pipeline(s) near Goi; (ii) the at the time of the spill most recent HSE audit (HSE stands for: Health, Safety and Environment, addition Court of Appeal) evaluating the SPDC’s Emergency and Oil Spill Response procedures applying to the pipelines and the Goi area; (iii) the audit results and remedial action plans (‘findings, recommendations and approval and closeout of actions) documented on the basis of those audits). Shell has not addressed this issue concretely anymore; it just repeated its earlier response cited above. As a result it has not contested with adequate substantiation the existence of documents as further described by Milieudefensie et al. in item 268. The fact that those documents do not concern the location of the spill in question is no ground for dismissal, for it does not mean that they may not be material in assessing how supervision was implemented and how relevant information was shared with the parent company. This part of the claim is therefore allowed in the manner set forth hereunder.

Ad c Assurance letters 2000-2004 According to Milieudefensie et al. in these Assurance letters operating companies must state that and how they have complied with the Safety and Environment (HSSE) policies and related standards of the Group. The objection by Shell that the said documents ‘relate to compliance with the HSSE policies in general and do not refer to specific oil spills’ is not a ground for dismissal. Nor does this mean that the said documents may not be material in assessing how supervision was implemented and how relevant information was shared with the parent company. This part of the claim is allowed in the manner set forth hereunder, with the caveat that this concerns the Assurance letters drafted and submitted by SPDC.

Ad d Reports of Significant Incidents and High Potential Incidents 2001-2004. Demanded are incidents reported by SPDC in the three year period preceding the 2004 spill concerning (i) (potential) spills and defects to the entire pipeline near Goi and (ii) sabotage attempts to pipelines in a 100 km radius around Goi. With regard to these reports Shell has also advanced the defence that they do not relate to the spill in question, because that spill does not fall within the category ‘incidents with serious consequences’ and therefore was not included in the aggregated quarterly reports. This does not affect the fact, however, that inspection of the reports in question may be important within that context to the alleged violation of a duty of care. As regards the reports of attempted sabotage it may be important whether they concerned a subterraneous pipeline. This part of the claim is therefore allowed in the manner set forth hereunder.

Ad e Incident report, investigation report and review concerning the spills. Milieudefensie et al. demand submission of these documents because according to them they had to be prepared about the 2004 spill. Shell absolutely denies that these documents exist. From the part of Milieudefensie et al. no clues have been submitted to the contrary. This part of the claims cannot be allowed therefore.

Ad f Minutes of the parent company with regard to the documents referred to under b, d and e. There are insufficient grounds for allowing this part of the claim. Against the background of Shell’s assertions under 6.9 (i) and (ii), by granting inspection of the documents referred to under b, c and d the interests of Milieudefensie et al. are met sufficiently. In other words, against this background and in view of that award, the interest in inspection of the minutes is insufficiently substantiated, as it is based on a reference to yet further documents, the contents of which Milieudefensie et al. do not know.

Ad g Documents from the Corrosion Management Framework 2001-2004. Milieudefensie et al. demand inspection of documents from this framework about the pipeline near Goi for the three year prior to the spill in 2004. In its motion for production of exhibits Milieudefensie et al. only specified these documents in relation to its claim against SPDC. In this respect the claim is dismissed on the ground provided in 6.3 and 6.4. In as far as Milieudefensie et al. have since demanded production as part of their claim against the parent company, Shell has submitted that the parent company was not and is not notified about the documents referred to here, if they exist at all. Milieudefensie et al. have not addressed this matter since, while there is no evidence disproving Shell’s assertion. Therefore, this part of the claim cannot be allowed.

Ad h and i The HSE plan applicable to Goi/Ogoniland at the time of the spills and the Hazards and Effects Register and the HSE case applicable to Ogoniland and the pipeline near Goi in 2004. Submission is demanded of the passages from the HSE plan, as well as the Hazards and Effects Register and the HSE case relevant to the pipeline at Goi. Shell forwards the defence, inter alia, that a specific HSE plan for ‘Ogoniland and the pipeline near Goi’ did not exist at the time of the spill in 2004, nor that a Hazards and Effects Register or the HSE case existed with regard to Ogoniland and the pipeline near Goi. It has not contested, however, or at least insufficiently, that there are (parts of) more general documents than those in question which applied to (inter alia) this pipeline and this area. In so far as such documents exist, Shell must provide them for inspection in the manner specified below.

Further to Shell’s objection that some documents contain company confidential information Milieudefensie et al. have -rightly- pointed out that art. 843(a)(2) CCP offers sufficient possibilities to protect Shell’s interests, for instance by ordering that the documents are only made available for inspection and/or that with regard to some documents a duty of secrecy is imposed on the parties (cf. art. 29 CCP), or that only the attorneys/judges/justices may take cognizance of the documents containing company confidential information. In this sense the claim under art. 843(a) CCP is allowed, setting aside the dismissal by interim judgment of 14 September 2011; the documents referred to in b, c, d, h and i must be made available for inspection at the offices of a civil-law notary appointed by the parties by mutual agreement (and, lacking agreement, appointed by the Court of Appeal) for the account of Milieudefensie et al. under the stipulation that only the parties’ attorneys (including their colleagues working in the same office), court-appointed experts, if any, and the members of the Court of Appeal dealing with this case may take cognizance of the contents. Information from these documents that is considered important to the claims in the principal cases may only be used in the present proceedings (cases c and d). The attorneys entitled to inspect the documents may take notes on the information. No photocopies or photographs may be made of the documents. If there are any problems (of whatever nature) in the manner of inspection thus granted, the parties’ attorneys may submit these to the Court in writing for further decision.

Shell’s objections against the motion under art. 843(a) CCP have thus been discussed sufficiently; they cannot lead to an overall dismissal. As regards the documents described in more detail above under b, c, d, h and i the requirement of determinability has also been met. The Court of Appeal adds that it is assumed Shell will be able to execute this judgment against reimbursement of reasonable costs by Milieudefensie et al.

in conclusion

The complaints advanced on either side have been discussed sufficiently in the foregoing. In this stage they cannot lead to another result.

The costs in the motions will be reserved until the final judgment in the principal cases.

There are insufficient grounds for permission to institute an interim appeal to the Supreme Court, as applied for by Shell.

the conclusion

8. The conclusion is: (i) that the notices of appeal in case c are valid; (ii) that the Dutch court has international jurisdiction to hear the claims against both the parent company and the (sub) subsidiary SPDC, both in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP as in the principal claim; (iii) that Milieudefensie’s claims instituted by way of class action are admissible; (iv) that Eric Dooh’s claim is also admissible, and that in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP his right to claim may be assumed; (v) that Milieudefensie et al. have a rightful interest in inspection of a number of the documents specified by them, but (vi) that in view of Shell’s interests conditions are set to the manner in which this inspection may occur.

The Court of Appeal, before taking any further decisions:

in the motion contesting jurisdiction in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP - case c (200.126.843):

- declares that the Dutch court has international jurisdiction to hear the claim under art. 843(a) CCP;

in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP in both cases:

- sets aside the judgment in the procedural issue pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP pronounced on 14 September 2011, except in so far as the claim pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP was allowed;

and in a new judgment on the dismissed claim pursuant to art. 843(a) CCP:

- orders Shell to allow Milieudefensie et al. inspection of the documents described in more detail in legal ground 6.10 under b, c, d, h and i above within eight weeks;

- orders that this inspection should be allowed by making them available,

for the account of Milieudefensie et al., at the offices of a civil-law notary appointed by mutual agreement (and, lacking agreement, appointed by the Court of Appeal on the request of the parties’ attorneys), under the stipulation that only the parties’ attorneys, court-appointed experts, if any, and the members of this Court of Appeal dealing with this case may take cognizance of the contents;

- dismisses the defences put up by Shell against this award;

- orders that if there are any problems in the execution of the above decision, the parties’ attorneys may submit these to the Court in writing for further decision;

- declares that the judgment with regard to the above order is provisionally enforceable;

furthermore, in the procedural issues in both cases:

- reserves the costs until the final judgment in the principal cases;

in the two principal cases:

- declares that the Dutch courts have international jurisdiction to hear the claims, more particularly case number 200.126.843 (case c) against SPDC, and to that extent upholds the judgments of the court below;

- refers the case to the cause list of 22 March 2016 for Milieudefensie et al. to submit a statement of appeal stage 2.

Pronounced by J.M. van der Klooster, S.A. Boele and S.J. Schaafsma in open court on 18 December 2015 in the presence of the clerk of the court.

Language of the case: Dutch.No rights may be derived from this translation