THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 29 AUGUST 2026
SLF-2007-041
The Sakhalin Papers XXXI: The Judicial Review That Never Reached Judgment — WWF, The Corner House and the Unanswered Legality Question
In August 2007, WWF-UK and The Corner House asked the Administrative Court to examine a question created by a three-year-old ECGD letter: could Britain’s export-credit agency make a legally binding conditional commitment to support Sakhalin II contracts before completing its environmental assessment — and while the very British supplies it was supposed to “facilitate” were already being delivered? The pleadings survive. The arguments survive. The judgment does not. Sakhalin Energy withdrew its application before the case could be decided.
Archive reference: SLF-2007-041
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal legal record: R (WWF-UK and The Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform — Statement of Facts and Grounds, dated 11 August 2007
Supporting records: Royal Dutch Petroleum Company/The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company Form 6-K, May 2003; WWF and Corner House witness material; contemporaneous reporting by The Guardian; Sakhalin Energy statements reported by Interfax; Parliamentary material concerning ECGD and Sakhalin II
Evidence standard: The allegations in the judicial-review papers are identified as allegations advanced by the claimants. They are not court findings. ECGD’s responses are identified separately. Sakhalin Energy’s withdrawal of its financing application is not treated as an admission of illegality or environmental wrongdoing. No court adjudicated the merits of this judicial review.
The next materially distinct documentary angle is the formal exception from Shell’s own group safety-control requirements. The 24 August instalment mentioned this only in passing and expressly identified it as a separate documentary story; it has not yet received a dedicated article. (

John Donovan:


THE SHELL LEAKS FILES























