Okpabi and Others v Royal Dutch Shell plc and Another [2021] UKSC 3

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Okpabi and Others v Royal Dutch Shell plc and Another [2021] UKSC 3 follows a similar trajectory to its predecessors, Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 and Vedanta Resources plc and Another v Lungowe and Others [2019] UKSC. In this short note, we explore the judgment in Okpabi and the implications of increased parent liability for subsidiaries’ actions. This decision removes procedural barriers for claimants particularly around jurisdiction and civil procedure. Specifically, we reflect on the potential that this judgment has for greater access to remedy for those who have suffered a negative human rights impact because of business activities.

Research on Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Duty of Care in the Global Supply Chains

“…The case originated from a public interest lawsuit filed by a non-governmental organization Vereniging Milieudefensie against RDS on behalf of some residents, requiring RDS to assume quantitative emission reduction obligations. Based on the duty of care in the unwritten law mentioned in Dutch civil law, considering the development trend of international law and the need for human rights protection, the HDC recognized that RDS had an obligation to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 [12]. The most controversial issue in this case was how to understand the scope of emission reduction obligations.…”