Trafigura vindicated in the English High Court
Twenty international independent medical and scientific experts
were unable to identify any link between exposure to the chemicals
released from the Probo Koala’s slops and deaths, miscarriages and
serious illnesses in Abidjan. Consequently, on 19th September
2009, Trafigura’s position was vindicated when the English group
action claim was settled.
As a result of this expert evidence, the claimants’ own lawyers,
Leigh Day & Co, acknowledged in an Agreed Joint Statement that
‘the slops could at worst have caused a range of short term
low-level flu like symptoms and anxiety’. They also accepted that
evidently many of the claims made in Abidjan had been for symptoms
completely unrelated to exposure to the slops.
The settlement was reached without any admission of liability
from Trafigura. As Trafigura has always maintained, it could not
have foreseen the disgraceful actions of Compagnie Tommy which, as
demonstrated by the convictions in the Ivory Coast, was called to
account for the dumping of the slops.
While the evidence shows that the slops simply could not have
caused the injuries alleged by Leigh Day & Co, as part of the
settlement, Trafigura agreed to make a low-level payment of £950
per claimant (less than a fifth of the £5,000-£6,000 sum that Leigh
Day & Co had originally been seeking).
On 23rd September, Mr Justice MacDuff, who had been due to hear
the case had it gone to trial, said: ‘From where I sit and from
what I have seen of the [Court] papers, the Joint Statement is 100%
truthful.
‘I have been following what has been happening in the media both
in the newspapers and on TV and radio. I have witnessed myself how
wildly inaccurate some of the statements have been. It can all be
put right with the final Joint Statement. Speaking for myself, I
hope the press that have made statements which have been wrong will
take note of the Joint Statement.’
As a result of the same independent expert evidence, the libel
proceedings against Leigh Day & Co were also settled in
Trafigura’s favour. Leigh Day & Co agreed to withdraw its
previous remarks and remove all offending statements from its
website. The company also agreed to publish the Agreed Joint
Statement prominently on its website for 21 days.
FAQs
Why did Trafigura agree to a settlement with Leigh Day
& Co and its claimants, given it does not admit
liability?
As long as it was being suggested by the claimant’s lawyers that
Trafigura’s actions had caused deaths, miscarriages and serious and
long-term injuries, Trafigura was determined to go to trial to
vindicate its position. However, Leigh Day & Co finally
acknowledged the reports of independent scientific experts and
doctors showing that the serious and long-term injuries they had
alleged simply could not have been caused by the slops.
Once it was demonstrated and accepted by Leigh Day & Co that
the slops could, at worst, only have caused ‘low level flu-like
symptoms and anxiety’ the decision to settle was consistent with
Trafigura’s approach since the beginning to recognise what it
believed to be a responsibility to the region and its people
regardless of any legal liability.
On another level it was also important to draw a line
under this event for all involved and once the scientific case
clearly established the facts, it made sense to complete the
procedure as soon as practicable.
But Trafigura paid £30 million. Surely you admit there
were serious injuries from the incident?
No. Trafigura agreed to pay £950 to each claimant. The
claimants’ lawyers had claimed £5,000 or more for each person,
totalling about £180 million. That £950 is an appropriate sum for
those who may have suffered short-term, low-level symptoms or
anxiety. In England, for example, compensation for a minor whiplash
injury typically is around £850 to £2,750. By agreeing to pay £950
per claimant, Trafigura did not admit any liability. The
settlement was a sensible resolution to avoid additional expensive
and time-consuming legal costs.
So, if Trafigura agreed a settlement, why was the court
involved?
It is mandatory in the UK for a settlement involving children to
be endorsed by the High Court. It is also the reason that the
endorsement hearing had to be held in private.
Once the proceedings in the Group Legal Action brought by
Leigh Day & Co concluded why did you not publish the experts’
reports?
The independent experts’ reports are not scientific papers in
the academic sense (i.e. not available for broad publication). The
reports were highly detailed, are thousands of pages long and, more
importantly, were specifically prepared as forensic evidence with
regard to cases concerning private individuals, including
children.