Environment campaigners in latest round of fight with Shell directors

ClientEarth, a shareholder in Shell, is unhappy about the company’s ‘climate change strategy’ and wants to make a ‘breach’ of duties claim.
Environment campaign group ClientEarth is unhappy about Shell’s ‘climate change strategy’ (Alamy/PA)
Brian Farmer12 July 2023

An environment campaign organisation is staging the latest round of a fight with directors of oil giant Shell.

ClientEarth, which is a shareholder in Shell, is unhappy about the company’s “climate change strategy” and wants to make a “breach” of duties claim against directors.

A High Court judge in May refused to give ClientEarth permission to continue its claim after considering written arguments.

ClientEarth then asked to be allowed to make oral arguments.

Lawyers representing the charity on Wednesday asked Mr Justice Trower to reconsider his decision, at a High Court hearing, in the Rolls Building in central London.

Shell says the judge should dismiss ClientEarth’s reconsideration application.

Mr Justice Trower had said, in a ruling published on May 12, that in order to pursue its claim, ClientEarth had to show there had been “an actual or proposed act or omission involving negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust” by a director or directors.

He dismissed the charity’s application after concluding that it had not produced sufficient evidence to support its claim.

Barristers representing ClientEarth on Wednesday asked the judge to reconsider and outlined the “premise” of the charity’s case.

Shell directors had “already identified” climate change risk as a “material factor” that “impacts on their duties” to promote the company’s long-term commercial success, they said, in a written case outline.

ClientEarth argued that strategies adopted by the directors constituted a “breach of their duties”.

Plans adopted by Shell were “irrational”, barristers added.

They said ClientEarth’s claim should be allowed to proceed.

Lawyers representing Shell argued that Mr Justice Trower’s May ruling was “unimpeachable”.

They said ClientEarth had received “minimal support” from shareholders and argued that the judge should “stand by” his decision.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in