Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

A message to Shell whistleblower 5388

By John Donovan

To 5388, please leave us to decide on the possible repercussions of publishing Shell internal email. You will not be involved. We have had a great deal of experience.

Shell sued Dr Huong because he is from Malaysia, a country where the judiciary is corrupt and justice can be bought by the party with the deepest pockets.

Shell has an entirely different attitude towards us. Printed below is one of the many press statements Shell has issued about my father and me.

On 17th March 1995, Shell UK circulated to the media a press statement headed: “DON MARKETING LIMITED –V- SHELL UK LIMITED. Its ferocious content shows just how livid Shell UK was about our legal claims and our campaigning activity. 

This is what it said: –

During the past few months Mr John Donovan, the Managing Director of Don Marketing Limited, and his father, Mr Alfred Donovan, have conducted a publicity campaign connected with legal actions which Don Marketing has initiated against Shell U.K. Limited. Shell believes the courts are the proper forum for a commercial dispute of this kind, and wishes to see matters resolved there. However, due to the growing number of untrue and often offensive allegations being made about Shell in the campaign, the company feels it is appropriate to comment more fully.

Shell U.K. Limited is defending legal actions which allege that Shell UK wrongfully used two forecourt promotions – ‘Nintendo’ and ‘Now Showing’ – developed by Don Marketing without its consent. The allegation is untrue.  Don Marketing has no case and the legal actions are being strenuously defended. Shell is always anxious to resolve disputes amicably where possible but in this case sees no alternative but to allow the litigation to take its course.

Mr Donovan appears to have little faith in his company’s claims. Since initiating legal proceedings he and his father have adopted the unusual course of mounting a publicity campaign to ventilate allegations against Shell and members of its staff. Mr Donovan’s father has recently founded what he calls a ‘Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group’ to promote this campaign. 

Mr Donovan and his father have written to the directors of Shell UK and its parent companies stating that they plan to outline the allegations against Shell and its staff to the company’s shareholders, the President of the Board of Trade, a number of publications and to ‘Internet’ users. They have also claimed that they intend to write to media and shareholders calling for the resignation of senior Shell managers, allege that they plan to write a book, have sent publicity material to several Shell locations in the UK and have attempted to assemble negative views of Shell from some retailers. Shell believes these actions are an attempt to sully Shell’s reputation with sensationalist allegations, in the hope that the company may be coerced into settling false claims.

Don Marketing and the so called pressure group have repeatedly attempted to goad Shell into issuing proceedings against them for what they are doing. Shell has to date declined to do so. Shell believes that the invitation to take legal action has been made merely to generate publicity and to substantiate Mr Donovan’s false assertion that Shell is a large company oppressing a small trader. Shell believes that any libel proceedings it brought would be likely to succeed. However, it doubts that Don Marketing and the so called pressure group would have the funds to pay Shell’s costs and the compensation it would be awarded. 

Shell would be in breach of its obligations to shareholders if it initiated legal actions, failed to defend itself, or participated in actions in which it would lose money even if successful. Shell will therefore be applying to the court for Security for Costs in the existing legal actions brought by Don Marketing, in order to ensure that Don Marketing can pay Shell’s legal expenses in the event – which Shell believes likely – that Don Marketing’s claims will fail in court. 

Shell UK Media Relations, March 17, 1995

We were later given the impression by Shell Legal Director, Richard Wiseman, that the rabid missive with its allegations of “false claims” was personally authored by the then Chairman and Chief Executive of Shell UK Ltd, Dr Chris Fay and circulated to the media despite internal legal advice not to do so.  On 11th April 1995, my father issued a High Court Writ for libel against Shell UK.  Shell settled the case and the “Nintendo” and Now Showing” cases described in the press statement as being “false claims”.

We sued Shell for libel after posters were put on display at the Shell Centre making defamatory comments about us. I also sued Shell for libel in respect of other Shell press statements. Shell failed in an attempt to have the action struck out and it was settled with me receiving a secret payment not even disclosed to the trial Judge.

Shell lawyers are naturally reluctant to cross swords again with us as Shell has lost or settled several High Court actions, a County Court action and proceedings brought via the World Intellectual Property Organisation when Shell unsuccessfully attempted to seize its own dotcom domain name: royaldutchshellplc.com.

In the most recent proceedings, Shell had 650 in-house lawyers in its corner. My father had no legal representation but still won the case on a unanimous verdict.

So please let us worry about the legal aspect of any insider information we decide to publish, as we have unrivalled experience in dealing with Shell lawyers.  We are the last people that Shell wants to sue.

With regard to the “Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group”, the inspiration for the name arose from an article in the September 1994 issue of the Shell “Chairman’s Bulletin” sent to Shell shareholders, which claimed a culture of “corporate conscience” at Shell.

Our membership included Shell suppliers, fellow Shell shareholders and Shell retailers – amazingly nearly 15% of Shell UK retailers joined the pressure group. Several hundred Shell retailers participated in our “business ethic” surveys about Shell. We published the results in successive monthly whole page notices in the forecourt trade press. All responses were opened under the supervision of an independent solicitor who provided an Affidavit verifying the results, which were devastatingly bad for Shell.

89% of respondents said that they would not recommend any petrol retailer considering a brand change to switch to Shell. 

75% of the Shell stations that participated were of the opinion that Shell was unethical, incompetent, and greedy. 

Shell never did take up our challenge to commission and publish the results of independent research, using precisely the same questions and offering respondents GUARANTEED anonymity. 

We also received many letters from Shell stations complaining bitterly about the business practices of Shell.

Here is a selection of quotes from some of the letters: –

“Extremely bad company”

“I believe the current regime is totally immoral”

“We have serious concerns about Shell’s ethical conduct”.

“The fickle nature and lack of honour within our negotiations were a shock to ourselves coming from a large company…  We would hope this letter may help you and serve as a warning to others contemplating any form of activity with this company”.

“You are not alone in being steamrollered by this company”.

All of our many warnings about the dishonesty of Shell management were ignored and the reserves fraud followed. Some of the same unethical senior managers remain at the helm of Shell to this day, including Malcolm Brinded.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: