• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

ClientEarth v Board of Directors of Shell

Filing Date: 2022
Status: Pending
Case Categories:
  • Suits against corporations, individuals
    • Corporations
      • GHG emissions reduction
Jurisdictions:
  • United Kingdom
    • England and Wales
      • High Court of Justice
Principal Laws:
  • United Kingdom
    • 2006 Companies Act
Summary:

On March 15, 2022, ClientEarth issued a press release stating that they were taking a claim against the Board of Directors of Shell under the Companies Act 172 and 174. The legal environmental charity allege that the Board of Shell have failed to implement a climate strategy that is in-keeping with the Paris Agreement goal. The Companies Act 2006 section 172 states that companies have a duty to “act in the way he considers … would be most likely to promote the success of the company.” Whilst section 174 states the “duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.” Despite Shell committing to being a net-zero company by 2050, ClientEarth's analysis of Shell’s company strategy displays them exceeding this goal considerably, going so far as to add to a rise in emissions by 2030. This is thought to be the first UK case of its kind that has taken derivate action against a board of directors for failing to consider efforts towards achieving net zero. Client Earth is currently waiting on response from Shell Board of Directors.

At Issue: Holding the Board of Directors of Shell Liable under the UK Companies Act s.172 and 174. ClientEarth UK are arguing that the board has not implemented a climate strategy that is in keeping with the Paris Agreement goal.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Summary
03/15/2022 Press Release Download ClientEarth Press Release

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.