Environment group waits for ruling in latest stage of fight with Shell directors
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
An environment campaign organisation is waiting for a ruling in the latest round of a High Court fight with directors of oil giant Shell.
ClientEarth, which is a shareholder in Shell, has raised concern “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 on Wednesday asked Mr Justice Trower to reconsider his decision.
Shell said ClientEarth’s reconsideration application should be dismissed.
The judge considered oral arguments at a High Court hearing, in the Rolls Building in central London.
He said he would deliver a ruling on ClientEarth’s reconsideration application in the near future.
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 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.
The long-term success of the company required an “effective and workable” climate change strategy, barristers said.
ClientEarth argued that strategies adopted by 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.
