If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, then you may find this article by John Donovan to be of interest…
The first difficulty faced by potential litigants considering suing Shell, is finding a law firm with the required resources which does not have a conflict of interest and is willing to confront an opponent quite literally prepared to stop at nothing.
In this connection we may be able to assist by providing introductions at law firms with a track record of winning cases against Shell, who may in some cases, be willing to work on a contingency fee basis.
The owners of this website have been participants in countless proceedings with Shell stretching back to 1993. We are currently involved in proceedings brought by EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group. A High Court hearing took place on 8 February 2007. The next is scheduled for 7 August.
Consequently, we know most Shell litigation moves including the use of:
* unscrupulous solicitors e.g. Kendall Freeman
* undercover activity
* witness intimidation
* jurisdiction ploys
* burying evidence
* tampering with evidence
* holding back discovery documents
* manipulating the news media
* hiding information about the litigation from Shell shareholders
* dragging out litigation to drain the resources of a weaker opponent
Basically nothing is too low for Shell.
Knowing that other parties have had the same problems dealing with Shell can help psychologically and also possibly strengthen a case by providing what is known as “similar fact evidence”. This perhaps explains why one of Shell’s first actions in responding to a case is to ask that the case be sealed, preventing the court documents and documents relating to discovery from reaching the public domain. Even where a case has been sealed, the initial petition is by definition in the public domain, since it was lodged with the court before the case was sealed. Shell does not want news of litigation to circulate in case it reaches the ears of another potential or actual litigant who might be able to supply or benefit from acquiring similar fact evidence.
It has therefore been suggested that we act as a repository of threatened or actual legal proceedings against Shell. This would enable us to compare cases to check for relevance to litigation already in our files and notify relevant parties accordingly, putting them into direct contact if both sides agree. In the event of a pattern of Shell conduct being revealed, perhaps even involving the same Shell individuals, it might enable the cases to proceed more expeditiously and potentially even persuade Shell to settle out of court rather than allowing predatory conduct to be exposed in open court.
Consequently, if you have a legal grievance against Shell you are invited to report it to us. If legal documents are already in the public domain we will, with your permission, publish them. If the information is confidential we will only share it with another party with a similar grievance if you give us clearance to do so.
It can be sent directly to me at: [email protected]
Our own experiences with Shell: At the beginning of our legal battles with Shell we knew nothing about such shady tactics but were well aware of the daunting challenge of taking on a multinational Goliath which has an army of in-house lawyers supported by unlimited financial resources and a ruthless unscrupulous management. We thought we were on our own in having to threaten ligation after a Shell manager stole our intellectual property. Then in a meeting I had with a Shell Chairman, he let it slip that other firms were also threatening to launch legal proceedings on the same basis about the same Shell national manager. In other words, the Shell manager in question had been accused of stealing ideas from other parties who, like us, had disclosed information on a confidential basis believing they could trust Shell. The then Shell Chairman, Dr Chris Fay, claimed that he could not agree to settle our claim because it would set a precedent. This was a major concern in view of the fact that other potential litigants were pressing Shell. Royal Dutch Shell did later did settle for £200,000 (approximately $400,000.)