The first hearing in Shell's multimillion dollar ‘intimidation'
lawsuit against Greenpeace over a peaceful protest last year will
take place today. Greenpeace activists demonstrated in solidarity
outside the court at 10:30 this morning.
The English Admirality Court will hear arguments after Shell
opposed the length of the defence submitted by Greenpeace's legal
team. In Shell's initial complaint, the company's legal team
specifically asked that a section outlining the company's
decades-long history of climate denial and environmental
destruction be removed. The section also highlights Shell's
failure to comply with a Dutch court ruling ordering a 45%
reduction in the company's carbon emissions by 2030 relative to
2019 levels.
Greenpeace's legal team argued that sections related to Shell's
climate record are essential to explain why its peaceful
occupation of a Shell oil platform was justified as a matter of
human rights law. Further, they argue that Shell is only able to
obtain some of the legal remedies it seeks if it has “clean
hands” (has not acted improperly), and its actions as regards to
climate change, including contributing significantly to climate
change despite knowing its harm, demonstrate improper conduct.
Following campaigning by Greenpeace,
Shell has now apparently dropped the request that sections
related to its climate record be removed.
Philip Evans, Campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said:
“This is a brazen attempt to drag us into an unnecessary
hearing and drive up already spiralling legal costs. Shell thinks
this dirty trick will intimidate us into silence, but they won't
stop us holding them to account for their climate-wrecking
activities in court.
“Climate chaos is already wrecking millions of lives, from
searing heatwaves in West Africa to devastating floods across
Asia. Shell's reckless plans for massive new oil and gas projects
will only accelerate the crisis. With the government missing in
action, we won't stop campaigning until Shell and the rest of the
industry stops drilling and starts paying for the damage they are
causing around the world.”
Admirality Court guidance allows for a lengthier defence with
consent from the court. The court was willing to permit a longer
defence with Shell's consent. However, Shell's legal team has
repeatedly refused.
Greenpeace believes that Shell is tactically leveraging
procedural court guidance and the significant expense of a court
hearing to compel Greenpeace to exclude integral parts of its
defence. Shell's legal costs, which Greenpeace would be expected
to pay should the court ultimately accept Shell's damages claim,
are expected to run into the millions, exposing the environmental
group to considerable financial risk.
Shell's lawsuit has been widely acknowledged to be a strategic
litigation against public participation (SLAPP), a type of
abusive lawsuit commonly brought by wealthy corporations to
silence criticism. Last week, the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition, a
group of leading UK media organisations, lawyers and rights
groups and media organisations including Amnesty International,
the Committee to Protect Journalists and Index on Censorship
issued a statement in support of
Greenpeace.
On the same day, the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), a
coalition of 118 prominent rights groups including the European
Federation of Journalists,Article 19, and PEN International
certified Shell's lawsuit
against Greenpeace as a SLAPP.
Shell launched the lawsuit in late 2023 in response to a peaceful protest by
Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International earlier that year, in
which activists peacefully occupied a moving oil platform to
protest against the climate change loss and damage caused by
Shell. Shell names Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace International and
the climbers w! ho participated in the action as defendants in
its claim.
Activists were calling on the company to stop drilling for new
oil and gas, and start paying for climate damage that the oil and
gas industry is fuelling around the world. Shell acknowledges no
damage or meaningful delay was caused to its equipment, but is
nonetheless demanding extensive damages.
- ENDS -
Notes to editors:
-
An overview of the contents of the section that Shell
initially requested be removed from Greenpeace's defence is
available in this blog post on the
Greenpeace website.
