Settlement of Shell claims from Greenpeace Penguins Field climate change protest

11/12/24

On 10 December 2024 a settlement agreement brought to an end litigation begun in February 2023 in the Admiralty Court between Shell UK (and another) as Claimants, and Defendants including Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace International and individual Greenpeace activists. This was commenced when Greenpeace activists on RIBs boarded a heavy lift vessel then in the Atlantic but carrying an FPSO (a large floating structure used in oil production) destined for use by Shell in the Penguins Field it had decided to redevelop in the North Sea. The activists, later joined by two others, scaled the FPSO whilst on board the vessel and remained there for about 12 days until arrival of the vessel in Norway, by way of protest against Shell’s conduct in relation to climate change and displaying a banner stating “Stop Drilling, Start Paying”. Shell sought and obtained an urgent interim injunction and then pursued against the Greenpeace entities a claim for about £800,000 in damages plus very substantial costs, as well as further injunctive relief against all Defendants.

The primary claim was framed in the English tort of unlawful means conspiracy although Shell also sought to rely on Maltese law (the law of the flag of the carrying vessel). The alleged unlawful means included alleged breaches of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, the Collision Regulations, trespass and contravention of Maltese criminal law. Shell made wide ranging allegations of unsafe behaviour by the activists, including not only by reference to the risks inherent in boarding but also to allegedly unsafe practices such as wearing shorts and flip flops on deck once on board.

No damage was alleged to have been caused in or by the protest to the FPSO or the carrying vessel or otherwise (apart from an allegedly broken padlock). The damages were alleged to be recoverable as mitigation expenses incurred for safety and security reasons.

The Defendants denied that there was an actionable conspiracy (although admitting they had combined to stage the protest) and also relied upon Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR protecting the right to peaceful protest and freedom of assembly. The case raised potentially important issues as to the scope of unlawful means conspiracy and the scope of the right to protest, including on private property.

The case has now settled on the basis of the claims by Shell not being pursued, payment by Greenpeace of a donation to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution charity, and certain undertakings being given by the Defendants