Home » Resources » Ethnic discrimination, rights, democracy » » Legal Intervention » » all

Resources: Ethnic discrimination, rights, democracy, Legal Intervention

3 results

UK Supreme Court Rules that Nigerian Communities can Sue Shell in the UK

Landmark Judgment in Case of Okpabi and Others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDS) and Another

25 February 2021

On Friday 12 February 2021, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal was wrong to refuse villagers from the Ogale and Bille communities in the Niger Delta permission to sue Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) in London for damages allegedly caused by numerous oil spills from Shell oil pipelines.

The Appeal Court had previously ruled that the English courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case because RDS was found not to exercise control over its Nigerian subsidiaries.

file iconThe Corner House's written intervention in the case of Okpabi v. Shell

Neoliberalism, Law and Nature
Larry Lohmann

5 July 2017

Effective research and other action in the field of environment and law requires an understanding of how profoundly both have changed under neoliberalism. The growth of the neoliberal state amid productivity crisis and the move to a more financialized, rent-based global economy has been accompanied by sweeping legal innovations relating to property, trade, investment, rent and criminality as well as an expansion in the mass of written law and in the gaming of legislation.

file iconNEOLIBERALISM, LAW AND NATURE.pdf
file iconNeoliberalism, Law and Nature -- version published 2019

Court action to stop UK government department lifting ban on child and forced labour
The Corner House and Samata

30 April 2010

Lawyers acting for The Corner House and Indian group Samata requested a Judicial Review of the decision by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) effectively scrapping its absolute ban on providing financial support to projects overseas involving "harmful" child labour and forced labour. ECGD stated in response that it does not have to consider whether its support contributes to human rights abuse, because it "does not owe obligations to persons outside the jurisdiction of the UK".

file iconGrounds for Judicial Review
file iconECGD response to Grounds
file iconFirst reply to ECGD's response
file iconAdditional reply to ECGD's response
file iconCorner House witness statement
file iconAnnex 1: comparisons with other ECAs