Court: Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)

Challenges to major rail franchise procurements rejected

Stagecoach East Midlands Trains Ltd (and Ors) V The Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWHC 1568 (TCC)

On 9 April 2019, the Department had informed Stagecoach and Arriva, and a joint venture between Stagecoach, SNCF and Virgin, that their bids had been rejected on the basis that they did not comply with the pensions requirements of the Department for rail employees.  Eight cases were then brought, four judicial reviews and four claims for damages based on EU law, leading to a very complex and extensive disclosure exercise and an expedited trial of the pensions issues.  The case also involved an expedited application by the Defendant for summary judgment and an appeal to the Court of Appeal in November 2019.  

The case involving Arriva was settled in January 2020, shortly before the trial, but on 18 June 2020, Stuart-Smith J ruled in favour of the Department on all of the pension issues, finding that it had been a commercial decision by Stagecoach and its partners to reject the Department’s pension requirements and that the Secretary of State had been legally entitled to disqualify them for non-compliance.

Decision that Royal Dutch Shell Plc did not owe duty of care in respect of damage caused by its Nigerian subsidiary upheld

Ogale Community & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 191

Nigerian claimants appealed against a decision that the first respondent parent company, Royal Dutch Shell Plc did not owe them a duty of care in respect of pollution and environmental damage caused by oil leaks from pipelines and associated infrastructure operated by the second respondent subsidiary company, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. The […]

Claim against “anchor defendant” fails as no connection between claims and jurisdiction

Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell plc & Anor [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC)

The case involved proceedings concerning oil pollution in Nigeria that has affected activities on land and water, and considerable numbers of people. The defendants contended that the claimants approach put the defendant in the position of an “anchor defendant” to bring claims that would otherwise have no connection to this jurisdiction.

Court has jurisdiction to hear claims brought by Zambian citizens alleging injury, loss and damage due to copper mining

Lungoew & Ors v Vendata Resources Plc & Anor [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC)

The defendants sought declarations that the court did not have jurisdiction, or ought not to exercise any jurisdiction, in claims brought by 1,826 Zambian citizens alleging personal injury, damage to property, loss of income and loss of amenity and enjoyment of land, due to alleged pollution and environmental damage caused by copper mining, which the defendants were responsible for. Applications dismissed.

Former employee held liable for contempt after breaching injunction

Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust & Ors v Shaikh [2014] EWHC 4331 (QB)

The defendant was a former employee of the claimant, dismissed for gross misconduct. He harassed and defamed the claimants via the internet and an injunction was granted. The claimant sought to establish that the defendant had continued to publish materials online in contempt. Held: the defendant was responsible for the offending publications. The contempts were indeed serious however sanctions would be considered at a later hearing.