The case concerned land in and around BODO Creek, Nigeria, which was the subject of two oil spills in 2008. The Defendant, SPDC, operated a pipeline in the area as part of a joint venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation. Following the oil spills, a group of Claimants sought damages and a mandatory injunction, requiring the defendant to clean-up the area, or damages in lieu of the injunction. 

In October 2014, the parties reached an agreement pursuant to which a settlement was made for all claims, apart from the claim for a mandatory injunction or damages in lieu of the injunction for the clean-up (the “Clean-up Claim”). A payment of £55 million was made by the defendant in respect of the settled claims.  

The Clean-up Claim was stayed for two years and was to be struck out in October 2016, however, the claimants had liberty to apply to restore that claim before that date. The aim of the stay was to allow a remedial scheme to be put in place. The parties entered into the remedial scheme agreement in the expectation that it would reduce the work that is required for the trial and, if possible, facilitate an early resolution of the Clean-up Claims.  

There were two issues before the Court.  The first was that of substitution which was not contentious and involved substituting deceased claimants with new claimants.  The second issue was whether the clean-up claim should be stayed for an additional period of time, and, if it was stayed, whether any conditions should be attached to it.  

The Claimants argued that, amongst other things, they had an unfettered right of access to the court and that the Defendants had no basis upon which to ask the court to impose conditions.  The Defendants, on the other hand, contended that the stay should be for a short and finite period and that to permit a stay without conditions would be to the effect that a stay could continue ad infinitum. 

Mrs Justice Cockerill emphasised that the practice of the TCC was to be relatively resistant to lengthy stays, however, she noted that the particular facts of this case meant that it was an exception. The court held that it was procedurally correct that a restoration of the claim, at least for a brief period, is necessary. The judge appreciated that, not only is it sufficiently large and complex, the case is one which affects the lives and livelihoods of those affected by a very significant oil spill. Furthermore, it was noted that the best and perhaps the only way of ensuring that the remediation works takes place as swiftly as possible was to permit the remedial scheme to continue before a formal trial on the Clean-up Claim takes place. 

Therefore, it was ordered that an unconditional stay would be re-imposed until 1 July 2019. The stay was granted without conditions as the court’s view was that, in summary, the conditions proposed would only lead to further uncertainty and scope for dispute between the parties, which would inevitably increase costs and the time taken for the parties to settle the disputes.  

Although the TCC are reluctant to permit lengthy stays, the case demonstrates that special circumstances can arise which might influence the court to conclude that such an extension is necessary.