Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
TOTAL CHAOS?
Shell v. Total
Decision
Shell UK Ltd & Ors v. Total UK Ltd & Anor
1 arose from an explosion at the Buncefield Oil Storage Terminal which damaged land and facilities held on bare trusts for Shell, BP, Total and Chevron. Consequent upon the damage, Shell suffered economic loss, being unable to supply aviation and ground fuel to customers save in reduced volumes or at increased costs. Shell sought to recover the loss from Total, inter alia on the ground that it was negligently2 caused by those for whom Total was vicariously liable.3
1. [2010] EWCA Civ 180; 129 Con LR 104 (Waller V-P, Longmore and Richards LJJ); rvsg in part [2009] EWHC 540 (Comm); [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 (David Steel J).
2. Other claims were pursued in nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
3. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of David Steel J on this point. The principal issue in dispute was whether Total was wholly liable for the incident or whether Chevron too bore some of the liability. It was ultimately decided that Total was wholly liable. This note is not concerned with that aspect of the decision.
CASE AND COMMENT
537