IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                                        2000 D No_____________

                                    DIVISION

                                                                   (Draft only)

BETWEEN: -

                                                               JOHN ALFRED DYER                                             Claimant

and

                                                        SHELL RESEARCH LIMITED                                          First Defendant

                                                             SHELL UK LIMITED                                                 Second Defendant

                                              SHELL TRANSPORT & TRADING CO PLC                               Third  Defendant                                                   FRANCES MARGARET MORRISON                                  Fourth Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX                                               Fifth Defendant
 RICHARD MAX WISEMAN                                       Sixth Defendant

       GRAEME STEWART SUTHERLAND SWEENEY                   Seventh Defendant

 DAVID ALLISON PARKES                                      Eighth Defendant

  MARK MOODY-STUART                                         Ninth Defendant 

TO THE DEFENDANTS Shell Research Limited, whose registered office is Shell Centre, York Road, London SE1 7NA, and to Shell UK Limited whose registered office is Shell Centre, York Road, London SE1 7NA, and to Shell Transport & Trading Co plc, whose registered office is Shell Centre, York Road, London SE1 7NA, and to Frances Margaret Morrison of XXXXXXXXXX, London, and to (This individual -former legal head-has since written, denying any involvement or knowledge of the said events), and to Richard Max Wiseman, of XXXXXXX, London, and to Graeme Stewart Sutherland Sweeney of XXXXXX, Perthshire, and to David Allison Parkes, XXXXXX Cheshire, and to Mark Moody-Stuart of XXXXXX, London.  

The above named Claimant in respect of the claim set out herein has issued this claim against you.  

Within 14 days after the service of this claim on you, counting the day of service, you must either satisfy the claim or return to the Court office mentioned below the accompanying Acknowledgement of Service stating therein whether you intend to contest these proceedings.  

If you fail to satisfy the claim, or return the Acknowledgment without stating therein an intention to contest the proceedings, the Claimant may proceed with the action and judgment may be entered against you forthwith and without further notice.  

Issued from the                        this            2000.  

NOTE: This claim may not be served later than 4 calendar months (or if leave is required to effect service out of the jurisdiction, 6 months) beginning with that date unless renewed by order of the Court.  

______________

IMPORTANT  

Directions for Acknowledgement of Service

are given with the accompanying form.  

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
(Draft only)

         The Parties to the Action  

1.       The Claimant in Person is John Alfred Dyer of XXXXXXXXXXX, Liverpool, who was born in Liverpool on 5 May 1945.  The Claimant resides in Merseyside, Lancashire, England. The Claimant is solely responsible for all of the research findings in this claim, which have accrued over 13 years.  

2.       The First Defendant Shell Research Limited, company No. 00539964-incorporated 13 October 1954, as a subsidiary of NV Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij  (Royal Dutch/Shell Group). The Royal Dutch/Shell Group comprises over 2,000 companies in more than 100 countries. The Royal/Shell Group is the most profitable oil Multinational in the world.  It is the second largest in the private sector, responsible for 5% of the world’s oil and gas production (more than any other private company), and holds both the largest exploration area and the greatest proven reserves.  Shell is the tenth largest corporation in the world, by turnover. The First Defendant is a research arm of the Shell Group, and undertook nuclear research programmes from the 1950’s onwards. The First Defendant’s principal research centre, at Thornton Cheshire, was utilised for nuclear, military and other research  

3.       The Second Defendant Shell UK Limited provided legal and other services to the First Defendant and other members of the Shell Group, to the Claimant’s allegations, for all material times up to or about 2000, when apparently there was a reorganisation within Shell. The present position is unclear to the Claimant.  The Second Defendant was involved in the construction of Shell’s ‘defence’ Narrative of 7 February 1994 (see paragraph 41, onwards). The Second Defendant was incorporated 30 April 1915, company No. 140114 and has had a variety of names, its present (Shell UK) dates from April 1967. The Second Defendant is a subsidiary of NV Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij (Royal Dutch Shell).  

4.       The Third Defendant Shell Transport & Trading Co plc company No. 235763255, and is the Shell Group’s United Kingdom holding Company, with 40% of the assets.  NV Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij  (Royal Dutch) owning the remaining 60%. The Third Defendant has been, and is in overall charge of the Shell Group’s defence to the Claimant’s allegations at all material times.  

5.        The Fourth Defendant is Frances Margaret Morrison, who was Head of Media Relations for the Second Defendant, Shell UK Limited, and the Shell Group, at all material times up to March 1999. The Fourth Defendant was active in the construction of Shell’s defence and responses to the Claimant’s allegations, from on or about 1993. The Fourth Defendant’s name headed, and she signed, the said Narrative of the 7 February 1994.  

6.       (NOW DROPPED FROM FORTHCOMING CLAIM)  

7.       The Six Defendant is Richard Max Wiseman, was a Director of the First Defendant from 26 February 1996 to 14 May 1999, and informed the Claimant, on the 26 May 2000, that he is the First Defendant’s solicitor. The Sixth Defendant is (or was until recently) the Legal Head of the Second Defendant, Shell UK Limited Further he informs the Claimant that he is authorised to ‘speak’ on behalf of the entire Shell Group. From 24 May 2000, the Sixth Defendant has been writing to the Claimant under the heading of Shell International Limited, UK General Council  

8.       The Seventh Defendant is Graeme Stewart Sutherland Sweeney.  The Seventh Defendant has been a Director of the First Defendant, Shell Research Limited, since 1 September 1998.  Furthermore, the Seventh Defendant is the General Manager of the First Defendant’s, Thornton Research Centre.  

9.       The Eighth Defendant is David Allison Parkes, who was a Director of the First Defendant from June 1985 to 31 August 1998, and ‘Managing Director’ of the First Defendant’s, Thornton Research Centre, until on or about late 1998.  

10.   The Ninth Defendant Mark Moody-Stuart is currently the Chairman and Director of the Third Defendant, Shell Transport & Trading plc and has overall responsibility for its conduct.

_________________

11.   That on or about early 1988, the Claimant became conscious of the significance of allegations made to the Claimant from on or about 1971 by a number of individuals.  The individuals had allegedly been employed to decommission a nuclear facility in 1968, at the First Defendant’s- Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire, England.  The ‘individuals’ included the contractor, the sub-contractor, his foreman and fellow workers employed to carry out the alleged nuclear decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre in 1968.  The said individuals made the most serious allegations concerning wholesale nuclear dumping, which allegedly included the nuclear isotope- Strontium-90.  

12.   That at all material time to this action, the Claimant’s research methods have been meticulous.  For the Claimant was mindful that the consequences of publishing or alleging unfounded allegations (of the nature alleged) were potentially disastrous to all affected parties.  Consequently, the Claimant interviewed the demolition/decommission workers, contractor, sub-contractor, and others separately, critically and at length.  Furthermore, the Claimant undertook his research without informing virtually any of the individuals making the allegations of his intention and purpose in pursuing this matter.  Furthermore, at all material times to this action, the Claimant has ensured, as far as humanly possible, that his objectivity has not been compromised.  Therefore, the Claimant has maintained an equal distance from both ‘Shell’ and the ‘other’ personnel.  Literally years have gone by without the Claimant contacting or informing the decommissioning personnel and ‘others’ of his research findings.  Such is the extent of the Claimant’s scrupulous requirement to ensure that the ‘truth’ of matters is established, without any fear of personal preferences coming into play, that the Claimant has not presently informed the decommissioning personnel and others of the forthcoming court action.  

13.   That following a series of interviews the Claimant had no doubts concerning the sincerity of the various accounts of what had occurred at the First Defendants Thornton Research Centre, in 1968.  

14.   However, the interviewee’s detailed accounts and recollections required critical examination.  After the Claimant had conducted a series of interviews (running into double figures) with former employees of the First Defendant’s, Thornton Research Centre, and others, some of whom had never even heard of each other, and or met for years, if ever, the Claimant was satisfied as to the substantial truth of the allegations.  The Claimant found that the individual recollections of the events of ‘1968 were uniform, given the usual (minor) disagreements time and perception affords.  

15.   Consequently, the eyewitness accounts by the personnel who had carried out the nuclear decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre in 1968 were found to be accurate.  One of the ways one may test a particular hypothesis is by independent verifiable repetition.  This criterion was satisfactorily met. 

16.   That the recall of witnesses was on occasion remarkable considering the time scale between recollection and events.  Consequently, the Claimant was able to substantiate the ‘nuclear decommissioners’ eyewitness account of events, at virtually every point.

17.   By 1993/4/ the Claimant was able to substantiate the following:

a)      That Shell had selected and sought out a particular individual to carry out the nuclear decommissioning at the First Defendant’s -Thornton Research Centre.

b)      That the said individual and his partner utilised ‘there’ limited liability Company for the said decommissioning contract.

c)      That the owners of the selected demolition company had known criminal backgrounds.  

d)      Furthermore, the head of the chosen demolition company had a ‘record’ for illegally disposing of nuclear material/waste (other than for the First Defendant). That the First Defendant, and or its agents and or associates exclusively conducted their preliminary ‘high level’ confidential dealing with this particular individual.

e)      That the First Defendant had paid the contractor in cash, (a six-figure sum at today’s prices) for which no signed or other receipt(s) were requested or required.  

f)       That the decommissioned reactor/testing cell was hexagon-shaped and measured approximately 50-60 feet in diameter by approximately 18-20 feet in height.  The reactor’s construction utilised a 'very dense concrete' (biological shield), with ‘vast’ numbers of lead pellets/stamping encased throughout the concrete. So dense and strong was the reactors structure that all the existing, known demolition ‘equipment’ in and around Merseyside, was inadequate as a means of demolishing it.  The reactor had a ‘cellar’, which was many, many times greater volume than the reactor itself, and that the said cellar was very deep and extensive, consisting of ‘concrete’ wall inter-connecting structures, in which an extensive interconnecting network of piping had been employed.  

g)      That literally ‘wagon loads’ of ‘shielded’ copper cable was salvaged from the decommissioning of the said reactor.  The salvaged cable was all sold as scrap.  

h)      That the First Defendant’s chosen contractor and/or his limited liability company did not own any wagons, plant, crane, bulldozer, and or any other demolition equipment of any significance.   

i)        That the chosen contractors office (which Shell’s personnel visited several times prior to the decommissioning, in order to secure his services), could fairly be described as a ‘pigsty’.  The actual office/building was demolished under a slum clearance scheme several years later.  

j)        That the said contractors limited liability company was insolvent, at the time Shell sort them out.  Furthermore, the said company had a winding up petition issued against it, while the First Defendant’s nuclear decommissioning was still in progress.  In fact, within a matter of months of the end of the decommissioning contract the said company was compulsorily wound-up, in the High Court of Justice.  

k)      That the First Defendant and or there agents continued paying out enormous cash sums direct to the individual they had chosen to carry out their nuclear decommissioning, despite the fact that ‘his’ limited liability Company was officially carrying out the contract.  Hence, the creditors of the said company were being, and were, defrauded by this illegal action.  

l)        That the First Defendant, and or Shell, had paid for most of the hired plant.   

m)    That the First Defendant’s chosen contractor himself, in fact (sub) contracted out the actual nuclear decommissioning.  

n)      That the contractor’s, sub-contractor was a bankrupt unemployed domestic TV aerial installer, with absolutely no knowledge, understanding or experience of the process and/or requirements as to the decommissioning of a nuclear facility.  Furthermore, the said sub-contractor and his crew had limited actual demolition experience, this being one of the very first jobs they had ever undertaken.  

o)      That the wives of both the sub-contractor and his foreman employed at the First Defendants-Thornton Research Centre site to decommission its nuclear facilities, gave birth to a number of ‘deformed’ children, following the nuclear decommissioning.  In addition, there were a further number of other such births and miscarriages experienced (post Thornton) by the said wives.  

p)      The condition of the said newborn was such that both sets of parents were independently advised that not only would their newborn not survive, they were further advised that viewing would only prove distressing.  Following a number of such births the sub-contractor demanded to see his newborn child. He was distraught beyond words to discover that the newborn child’s head had not formed. The child, as per the others, was allowed to die within hours of the birth  

q)      That none of the said parents ever experienced any such difficulties before working at/on the First Defendant’s nuclear decommissioning at Thornton Research, in 1968.  Before working at Thornton, they had six healthy children between them.  

r)       The Claimant has established, as far as possible, that none of the said wives/husbands families had or has neither a history nor an experience of such birth ‘difficulties’.  

s)       Following the First Defendant’s nuclear decommissioning, in 1968, the sub-contractor went on to earn his living as a demolition contractor  

t)        That the sub-contractor in order to obtain his own demolition contracts gave as a reference, the First Defendant’s nuclear decommissioning to numerous councils and others up and until at least 1972.  It was a pre-requirement in the 1960/70’s that in order to successfully tender for council demolition work, contractors would have to be able to forward good references, usually council, to support its application.  However, a good reference from a company the size of Shell would most certainly suffice.  

u)      The said sub-contractor has stated to the Claimant, that he continually used the Thornton nuclear decommissioning as his first reference, and he has further stated that the wording for his reference was always (that had carried out the); ‘Demolition of a Strontium-90 Radioactive Testing Cell.’  

v)      The Claimant has obtained a Local Authority document (from the said Authority) by which the First Defendant confirmed the reference given by the sub-contractor.  The said documentation is dated 10 August 1972. The First Defendant stated that the said sub-contractor;  ‘had carried out the work in a competent and careful manner, complying with all Shell-Mex regulations’.  

w)    That ‘scientists’ from United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) Harwell were on the First Defendant’s- Thornton Research site for the said nuclear decommissioning in 1968. Their purpose was to retrieve and remove the most highly toxic/dangerous nuclear materials/waste, for reprocessing and hence ‘safe’ disposal. 

x)      That the said scientists had specialised remote control equipment in order to safely retrieve the most highly toxic/dangerous elements of the nuclear materials.  

y)      That the Harwell scientists were on occasion dressed from head to foot in specialist protective ‘clothing’, complete with breathing apparatus and Geiger counters.  

z)       That the said Geiger counters ‘went like the clappers’, whenever the scientists approached the reactor/testing cell.  

aa)   That the said Harwell ‘scientists’ set their Geiger counters on the floor, at some distance from the reactor/testing cell to record the radiation levels.  

bb)   That the said scientists had one or more lorry loads of ‘nuclear bins/barrels’^* bearing the international nuclear logo on and off site, to facilitate the removal and transportation of the (to be) retrieved high-level nuclear materials/waste.  (A lorry load of ‘nuclear bins’ in this instance equals approximately 40  bins)                          *A specialised lined re-sealable container utilised for the containment and transportation of nuclear materials. Once sufficient nuclear material, by volume, weight or radiation, was placed inside, the said container could then have concrete poured into it, to seal it off. (In fact, when the Harwell team left the Thornton site all the said bins/barrels were taken away completely empty.)  

cc)   That the decommissioning personnel (demolition ‘lads’) were instructed that it was imperative/ vital to ‘break open’ the reactor and expose the most highly toxic/dangerous element of the nuclear materials (a relatively small amount in tonnage terms). The plan was to ‘expose’ the identified materials/waste, in order for the Harwell ‘scientists’ to collect it with the said specialised remote control equipment and deposit the ‘waste’ in the ‘nuclear deposit bins’ for transportation and subsequent reprocessing. 

18.    The rest of the ‘materials/waste’ was to have been, and was, illegally dumped.  That the said ‘waste’ was, mainly, but not exclusively, in the form of ‘Strontium-90 pipes’, which the sub-contractor and his foreman were informed had to be separated from the reactor’s structure.

19.   That the said Strontium-90 ‘pipes’ ran from the reactors/testing cell’s outer circumference to its centre.  That the said pipes were arranged in a circular manner, with each pipe successively staggered, one ‘up’ the following ‘down’, next ‘up’, and so on, in a sort of wave formation.  That the precise number of ‘pipes’ has proved impossible to ascertain.  However, the sub-contractor and his foreman estimate that they numbered in the fifty plus region. The said reactor/testing cell had a number of experimental ‘holes’, along with a removable ‘roof plug’ and resulting gantry crane.

20.   That in fact it proved impossible to separate and retrieve the said pipes and the other required nuclear materials/waste.

21.   That the First Defendant’s personnel, and the Harwell ‘scientists’, became increasingly desperate to obtain the (mandatory) nuclear ‘materials’, without success. As the position grew increasingly frantic, discussions between the First Defendant’s employees and or their agents and the Harwell ‘scientists’ became heated. 

22.   For reasons the Claimant believes he now understands, the First Defendant ordered and sanctioned the wholesale dumping of immense amounts of nuclear material/’waste’, including all of the ‘pipes’ and other ‘waste’ which was planned to have been retrieved and reprocessed. 

23.   That despite the Claimant’s progress one major obstacle remained, namely the location of the nuclear ‘waste’ site/tip(s). For the contractor and sub-contractor, one of the great ‘bonuses’ of the decommissioning, was that the haulage contractor as part of his hire price supplied the ‘tip(s)’.  The, then, almost universal practice of tip owners demanding cash payments before any tipping was allowed, was in this instance absent as Shell were paying the plant contractors hire charges, and hence the tipping fees.  

24.   That by 1994, the Claimant had located several tipping locations (dump sites) utilised for First Defendant’s nuclear ‘waste’.   

25.   That part of the said ‘materials/waste’ was subsequently utilised in the manner outlined and stated (and or passed on) to the First, Second, Third, Sixth and Ninth Defendant’s, by the Claimant on numerous occasions. 

26.   That the quantities of the dumped nuclear ‘materials/waste’ has been outlined and stated (and or passed on) to the First, Second, Third, Sixth and Ninth Defendant’s, by the Claimant on numerous occasions.  

27.   The Claimant’s evidence reveals that part of the said ‘waste’ was stored and later sold on as ‘hardcore’ by the haulage contractor engaged to remove the ‘waste’ off-site. This portion of the nuclear ‘waste’ has proved impossible to locate.  

28.   That the First Defendant and it or its employees or agents, did plan, order and sanction the illegal dumping of nuclear materials/waste in 1968, in contravention of existing legislation, by way of example:                                     

Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962.

Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Irradiated Materials.

Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Lead.

Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Storage in Transit.

Atomic Energy Act, 1946.

Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954.

Nuclear Installations (Amendment) Act, March 1965.

Nuclear Installations (Licensing & Insurance) Act 1959.

Nuclear Installations Act, August 1965.

Radioactive Substances Act 1948.

Radioactive Substances Act 1960

Transfer of Functions (Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances) Order, 1953.

Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage.  

29.   In 1993, the Claimant’s research findings resulted in the commissioning of a television programme for Carlton Television. Carlton Television had commissioned the television production company, Twenty-Twenty Television, to make a series of programs for Carlton’s ‘investigative’ Thursday evening, prime time (7.30pm) national viewing slot.  

30.   On being ‘informed’ of the proposed program the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants (Shell) reacted in a wholly unreasonable and unjustified manner.   

31.   That the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants did conduct and/or condoned a campaign of the most outrageous personal and/or professional abuse and vilification against the Claimant and his research.  The said campaign was in order to, first, discredit the Claimant particularly in the estimation of Carlton Television and Twenty-Twenty Television and the directors/employees of Carlton/Twenty-Twenty Television, and in the estimation of all reasonable thinking people, and to further divert attention away from the truth, regarding the decommissioning of the said reactor/testing cell.  These fabricated allegations and complaints were a series of outrageous lies!  

32.   That the Fourth Defendant made, and/or allowed her name to be forwarded/used to the most scandalous, shameless serious of allegations to the Independent Television Commission (ITC), Carlton Television, and Twenty-Twenty Television impugning in particular, the Claimant’s integrity, research methods, and, alleged, harassment and mistreatment of ‘elderly Shell pensioners’.  These fabricated allegations and complaints were a series of outrageous lies!  

33.   In addition, the First, Second and Third Defendants and or their agents did directly or indirectly employ personnel to keep the Claimant under surveillance.   

34.   In addition, the First, Second and Third Defendants and or their agents did either directly or indirectly employ personnel to ‘tap’ the Claimant’s telephone.  

35.    In addition, the First, Second and Third Defendants and or their agents did either directly or indirectly employ personnel to intercept the Claimant's mail and on occasion kept and or destroyed the said mail.  

36.   In addition, the First, Second and Third Defendants and or their agents did either directly or indirectly either engage and or employ personnel who posed as debt collectors.  That the said ‘debt collectors’ tried to gain access to the Claimants home.  

37.   In addition, the First, Second and Third Defendants and or their agents, did either directly or indirectly engage and or employ personnel that posed as a representative of the Royal Mail. That the said ‘Royal Mail’ representative tried to gain access to the Claimant’s home.  

38.   That the First, Second and Third Defendants and or their agents did circulate damaging allegations concerning the Claimant’s integrity.   

39.   That the First, Second and Third Defendants placed and or authorised a ‘warning’ notice, or notices, in Shell’s ‘in house’ magazine for retired Shell personnel, regarding the Claimant’s alleged motives.   

40.   That the First Defendant and or their employees or agents did place on the Thornton Research Centre staff notice board a ‘warning’ to staff not to speak to the Claimant, alleging that the Claimant was a sensation-seeking journalist.  

41.   That the First, Second and Fourth Defendant (former BBC Television current affairs presenter Fran Morrison) waged an entirely unwarranted and shameful campaign of personal, hurtful and humiliating abuse against the Claimant.  

42.   That from on or about late 1993 until February 1994 the First, Second Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants employees and/or their agents constructed, and/or were a party to the construction of an extensive and detailed Narrative to set-out the First Defendants and Shell’s official position, and thereby explain away the Claimant’s allegations.  

43.   That on 7 February 1994, (three days before the proposed transmission date, 10 February) the said Narrative, using the Second Defendant’s letterhead and bearing the Fourth Defendant’s signature, was submitted/forwarded to Twenty-Twenty Television.

44.   The said Narrative was to claim (in effect) that: ‘Yes, the said contractor had in 1968 demolished a nuclear laboratory/building at the First Defendants Thornton Research Centre, however, the Narrative claimed to be a comparatively ‘harmless’ nuclear laboratory.  The laboratory/labyrinth that the said Narrative claimed had been demolished, in 1968, utilised the nuclear isotope-Cobalt-60. It was not, the Narrative claimed, the Strontium-90/maze/reactor/testing cell the Claimant had alleged. In terms of posing a (especially long-term) hazard, they are not comparable, Strontium-90 being one of the most hazardous nuclear isotopes known.  In short, (Shell’s) Narrative stated that the Claimant had identified the wrong ‘building’. The Narrative asserted, as a fact that the building that was decommissioned at Thornton Research Centre in 1968, by the said contractor, was the First Defendant's Cobalt-60 labyrinth.  The said Narrative unambiguously stated that the First Defendants-Thornton Research Centre: ‘…… did not and never has housed a (nuclear) pile or reactor.’  

45.  That the said (Shell’s) Narrative along with the campaign of personal/professional abuse and vilification against the Claimant and his research resulted in the television programme being ‘abandoned’.  

46.    In view of the fabricated ‘stories’ and lies told about the Claimant, but much more importantly the seriousness of the matters alleged, the Claimant continued his research.  

47.   That the Claimant came to realise that Shell’s shameless and effortless ability to lie combined with its media contacts, influence, and its power and ability to threaten and pursue legal means to silence ‘critics’, demanded a level of evidence far beyond that which could be considered reasonable.

48.   After consideration, the Claimant believed it was inappropriate to reveal to the decommissioning personnel, Shell’s Cobalt-60 Narrative of the 7 February 1994.  For there could conceivably be the inadvertent possibility of the decommissioning personnel framing answers, perhaps on a subconscious level, with the Cobalt-60 Narrative in mind.  

49.    In the light of the Claimant’s experiences with Shell, and its powerful connections, the Claimant believed that the volume of evidence required would have to be overwhelming.  First, the Claimant had to establish whether the Cobalt-60 labyrinth was the ‘building’ that had been decommissioned in 1968. If it was not the Cobalt-60, the Claimant needed to uncover what had been decommissioned at Thornton in 1968, its history, its purpose and the reasons for selecting and employing known criminals, and paying them enormous cash sums to carry out the nuclear decommissioning and (pre-planned) wholesale dumping of the nuclear materials/waste’.  

50.   By 1998 the Claimant had, with regards to the First Defendant’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth established:  

·         That there were no ‘tubes/pipes’ problems in the demolition of the First Defendant’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth.  In fact there were no ‘tubes/pipes’ as such, the said Narrative of 7 February 1994 was so constructed ‘There were some dozen service pipes running through the walls’, to deliberately and misleadingly fit the Cobalt-60 labyrinth in with the ‘lads’ actual experiences regarding the Strontium-90 ‘pipes/tubes’ retrieval difficulties.  

·         The Cobalt-60 labyrinth was not a ‘huge’ concrete structure, as per the said reactor.  In fact, the Cobalt-60 labyrinth only had one single (small) concrete block, in which three one-inch diameter stainless steel pipes were embedded.  Two of the pipes were sealed off with blanking caps, at the point that they came out of the said concrete block.  The purpose of the ‘spare’ pipes was in the event of the winding mechanism, utilised to wind the 6 pellet-240 curie Cobalt-60 source in and out of its ‘concrete resting block’, fouling/jamming or otherwise becoming unreliable; another pipe could be utilised. This was a sensible design precaution.  

·         The said Narrative stated: ‘Inside, the laboratory consisted of a small control room, separated by thick inner concrete walls from an irradiation chamber where the oil samples were exposed by remote control to Gamma rays from the Cobalt 60 sources. The three sources themselves consisted of Cobalt 60 pellets in sealed aluminium capsules, contained in small cylindrical stainless steel holders approximately 5 inches long and three-quarters of an inch diameter. These were housed inside an extra-dense concrete block 8 feet.’  In fact, there was never ever ‘three (Co-60) sources’!  There was only ever one ‘source’ complete with two spare pipes.  The claim that the Cobalt-60 (had)  ‘thick inner concrete walls’, is deliberately misleading, to enable the Cobalt-60 labyrinth (Narrative) to fit in with the actual nuclear decommissioning.  The Cobalt-60’s inner ‘walls’ were constructed using 18" X 9" x 6", concrete bricks/blocks (which contained cadmium stampings) laid on top of each other, as per a common brick wall.  In truth, the ‘Cobalt-60 inner (and outer) walls’ bore no resemblance to the ‘huge/massive’ concrete structure the ‘Lads’ encountered in decommissioning the First Defendants said reactor/testing cell.  

·         The said Narrative stated: ‘The laboratory was designed and built to advanced safety standards, far in excess of anything required at the time. It would be more than acceptable to the standards of 1994 if it were in place today.’  The reason for its design and structure was not as stated, but because it was designed and planned from the outset (1953), to introduce and use, when they became available,  ‘killer-curies’ of Cobalt-60.  For a 240-curie cobalt source is/was virtually useless, as a serious research tool.  However, ‘killer-curies’ were never introduced because much more serious nuclear ‘tools’ were available!  

·         The Claimant can now state that the First Defendant’s Thornton Research Centre-Cobalt-60 labyrinth was designed/planned (1953) to be temporary, until the First Defendants, Thornton Research Centre’s ‘radiochemical laboratory’ was being constructed.  

·         That no scientists were present at the Cobalt-60 labyrinth’s demolition, as claimed and set-out in the said Narrative.  

·         That no Geiger counter readings were recorded, taken or involved in/at the Cobalt-60 demolition, contrary to the said Narrative.  

·         That no UK Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell staff present at the demolition of the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, contrary to the said Narrative claims.  

·         That a film of the First Defendant’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth exists. The Claimant arranged (post the television programmes proposed transmission date, namely 10 February 1994) to show it to the sub-contractor.  The Claimant specifically informed the sub-contractor that he should view the footage very careful, and be completely open and honest as to whether or not he recognised the ‘building’. Matters were more complex than usual, for following the said Narrative (which the sub-contractor was unaware of) the television program was wrongly assumed by the sub-contractor to have only have been shelved. The sub-contractor being an unusually intuitive, intelligent and complex man, had incorrectly concluded that the Claimant had uncovered a film of the reactor/testing cell, he had decommissioned in 1968. Why else, he reasoned, would the Claimant be requesting him to view this film, if it was not the ‘reactor’?  Consequently, the sub-contractor had come to believe that the Claimant had secured footage of the said ‘reactor/testing cell’, which he believed would enable the ‘postponed’ television program to be reinstated, as a result, the sub-contractor was strongly predisposed to viewing the film with a view to accepting it as the said reactor.  The Claimant purposely decided not accompany the sub-contractor to/at the viewing.  Furthermore, the Claimant did not visit the sub-contractor until the following day, so that a proper unhurried appraisal might be given.  The sub-contractor was adamant and unhappy that the footage he had viewed (the First Defendant’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth) was not the ‘building’ he had decommissioned in 1968.  He informed the Claimant (that I had); ‘ definitely got it wrong’.

·         It is the Claimant’s intention to show the film of the First Defendant’s Cobalt-60 Labyrinth, to the jury.  

·         Further, the Claimant has established that the sub-contractors team involved 16 personnel in total, 8 Ford D1000 tipper wagons, a Drott 995K (extremely powerful tracked shovel ‘bulldozer’) and an industrial/ demolition crane with the biggest and heaviest known demolition ball/tup in the UK  

51.  The Claimant’s research has established that Shell has an extensive and complex involvement with nuclear power, research and (UK) nuclear weapons, from their inception.  Having, for instance, been contracted to supply Heavy Water, and other nuclear materials.  

52. The Claimant’s research has further established that the First Defendant, was set-up in such a manner so as to protect its purpose, and furthermore that once the First Defendant’s nuclear facilities had been decommissioned in 1968 it was quickly, within a matter of ‘days’ suitably modified.  

53.The Claimant’s research reveals that Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild, more commonly known as Lord (Victor) Rothschild, played a significant and important role in the development of the UK’s nuclear, and other programmes.  

54.    The Claimant has established that Lord (Victor) Rothschild, played a central role in the First Defendants-Thornton Research Centre’s nuclear programmes, cumulating in the 1968 decommissioning of its reactor/testing cell/nuclear facilities. To gain an understanding of Rothschild’s role, one needs first to view the historical background.  The following quote from a ‘semi’ official record is as good a starting point as any: ‘Another fission product abundantly’ produced in atomic explosions is Strontium-90. It has a half-life of 28 years and (like calcium) is deposited in bone if taken into the body through the food chain; then, by irradiating neighbouring bone marrow, it can cause leukaemia or aplastic anaemia, or may in the long term give rise to bone tumours. Strontium-90 was causing increasing concern in the United States. Canadian and British scientists, and its significance was underlined in June 1956 by both Bronk and Himsworth reports on nuclear hazards. The US research program on Strontium-90 was known as Sunshine.  In October 56, US, UK and Canadian scientists meet in Washington to arrange collaboration on Project Sunshine. . ..’   In the 1950/60’s the United States was politically sensitive to worldwide concerns of the effects of nuclear fallout, especially Strontium-90.  Public opinion in Japan was particularly conscious and alarmed by Strontium-90 fall out, a most damaging nuclear fission product.  The USA was particularly concerned that Communists and others would ‘exploit’ this issue to their advantage.  The ‘West’s/US’s fears that Asia could fall to the Communists meant that an impartial appraisal of the effects of nuclear fallout was all but impossible.  It was, in part, this concern -the so-called ‘domino effect’ –that required the authorities forever play down the effects of nuclear fallout.                                                                                                                                                         In response to public pressure and in order to be at least seen to be addressing the issue, the US government was ‘forced’ to set-up an enquiry into nuclear fallout, with particular reference into the effects of Strontium-90.  The Bronk Committee report was a whitewash. The UK Authorities were also very concerned about the effects Strontium-90.  However, the United Kingdom was determined to develop its own nuclear weapons, and nuclear industry.  The troublesome effects of nuclear fallout, were put on one side, as the United Kingdom in pursuit of its own nuclear weapons, undertook a series of (nuclear) weapon trials/experiments in Australia, Malden and Christmas Islands from 1952 to 58. Subsequent United Kingdom (underground) nuclear weapon testing was carried out in co-operation with the USA. 

55.    The Claimant’s evidence now reveals that Lord Rothschild played a central and crucial role in the (effect of/on) blast, animal(s), and Strontium-90 fall-out experiments in the UK’s ‘Australia’ 1952-8 nuclear weapons/explosion test programs.  The Claimant’s evidence further reveals that Lord Rothschild had extensive connections with/into the UK (military) nuclear establishment, and furthermore Rothschild personally set-up and headed the UK (military) Strontium-90 research establishments/programmes, in the mid/late 1950’s.  The Claimant’s evidence further reveals that Rothschild personally selected, usually Cambridge, the personnel to head the Radio-Strontium (Sr-90) research bodies/units.  In 1958, the ‘head’ of the UK’s Strontium-90 (secret military research), Lord Rothschild, left Cambridge to join the First Defendant. 

56.    Meanwhile, the UK’s Strontium-90 research, far from diminishing, greatly increased in both manpower and scope. Rothschild’s interest in Strontium-90 research programmes continued until its demise, on or around 1968.  Following his appointment, as research head of the First Defendant, Lord Rothschild made the First Defendant’s Thornton Research Centre his base/ place of operation. Thus, the head of the United Kingdom’s Strontium-90 (military) research was installed at the First Defendant’s Thornton Research Centre.

57.   The Claimant’s evidence further shows that the First Defendant had further direct connections into the very heart of the UK (military) Strontium-90 research establishments (other than Lord Rothschild) and at the very highest possible level.  The Claimants evidence is now that all three ‘branches’ of the military Strontium-90 research units/programmes were connected to the First Defendant at the highest levels.

58.    The Claimant’s evidence now reveals that one of the world’s foremost researchers on the effects of nuclear radiation on the immune system was brought in from overseas (following Lord Rothschild), to join the First Defendant in 1958.  This individual’s specialised research field, on the effects of radiation on the immune system involved experimenting on/with animals, especially primates.  The research programmes involved, for instance, groups of animals being subjected to radiation exposure along with a controlled (experimental) ‘diet’, then studying the differing, if any, effects on the primates.  The caged animals would be exposed to varying levels of radiation, leading to their deaths.  In addition, the said ‘researcher’ had direct connections into/with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority’s Harwell Research Establishment.  The said research was, of course, military.

59.      A (Defence funded) document (with this said ‘Shell’ primate radiation researcher’s address clearly shown (Shell), dated three years (1961) after he joined the First Defendant) makes the following staggering claim in relation to the said research (that): ‘The possibility of radioresistance was suggested.’  In light of the, then, military and political establishments preparations for, and expectations of, nuclear war, this claim that would be taken most seriously.  

60.     That a former head of the UKAEA, Amersham- Radio Chemical Centre, has informed the Claimant that the First Defendant’s-Thornton Research Centre’s said Strontium-90 rods/pipes were ‘all most certainly’ prepared and supplied by Harwell’s 220 Labs.  He informs that Amersham itself supplied Strontium-90; hence, he unable to categorically state that Harwell supplied the said Strontium-90 ‘rods’ as it was, just, possible that Amersham itself supplied them.  What's more, he (and others) confirmed the ‘lads’ exhaustive description of the said Strontium-90 ‘pipes’, and the fact that Thornton’s (intended) retrieved Strontium-90 ‘rods/pipes’ were destined for reprocessing and or re-use (due to Strontium-90’s extreme long radioactive-life) and/or storage at the said 220 labs, and or Amersham.   

61.  The Claimant has established that Shell’s ‘involvement’ with Radio-Strontium, was wide and extensive, involving detailed, complex research programmes, which bore fruit to such an extent that patents were filed to protect its research findings/interests.

62.  The Claimant’s has now established that various other nuclear research programmes have been carried out at the First Defendant’s Thornton Research Centre.

63.   That the First Defendant and their employees and/or agents and/or other members of the Shell Group, were conducting research into nuclear Organic Moderators and Coolants at the First Defendant’s-Thornton Research Centre.  

64.   That the First Defendant, in particular, had carried out research in connection to the Navy’s need to perfect an Organic Moderated Reactor(s)-OMRE (Organic-Moderated Reactor Experimental).  Such a reactor would have significant advantages (pressure, corrosion and efficiency) and was believed to be especially advantageous/suitable for submarine propulsion, and bulk sea transportation.  Crude oil transportation was viewed to be the most suitable, as the ‘bulk’, economics/reactor cost criteria is met and further crude oil acts as an effective radiation shield.    

65.   The UK military’s urgent requirement to perfect an Organic Nuclear Reactor dates from the British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan having been ‘forced’ to concede, in order to secure the Polaris missile/submarine deal with President Kennedy*, to the United States that only it was allowed to produce and supply the highly enriched ‘Polaris’ (submarine) reactor fuel.  This proved to be very problematic as the United States controlled the UK’s Polaris fleets fuel supply, hence it effectively determined the UK’s nuclear fleets operational parameters.  However, an OMRE reactor does not require its nuclear fuel to be so highly enriched.  Within walking distance of the First Defendants-Thornton Research Centre, is Capenhurst, the UK’s nuclear (gaseous diffusion) enrichment plant.  This plant would supply the expertise and fuel for the OMRE reactor.  Hence, with the successful development of an OMRE reactor the ‘independent deterrent’ could once again become ‘independent’.

* The so named ’Statement on Nuclear Defence Systems’ / ‘Polaris Sales Agreement’  

66.    The Claimant’s evidence reveals that a Naval Officer was put ‘in charge’ of this research, at the First Defendant’s Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire.  Further, the Claimant has discovered the said Officer’s name, rank, position, and Naval history.  

67.    That the First Defendant’s ‘OMRE’, nuclear reactor research utilised polyphenyls, diphenyls, terphenyls*, and combinations of organics as nuclear moderator/coolants.  *A polyphenyl molecule is simply a number of ordinary benzene rings joined together; diphenyl consists of two rings, terphenyl three.  

68.   A major problem with polyphenyls is that they are practically solid at room temperature, consequently the whole OMRE system had to be preheated before loading of these hydrocarbons, and maintenance at temperature during all the pre-operational and low power tests. Thus, the firing up of an ‘OMRE’ reactor is fraught with difficulties for the reactor cannot be operated without a ‘full’ and unrestricted flow of its moderator, coolant.  

69.  That the ‘OMRE’ reactor would in operation, require constant refreshment of its organic moderator, coolants.  The Claimant evidence reveals that the research utilised/proposed a method of ‘efficiently’ disposing, and reusing, the damaged/contaminated organic coolant/ moderator.  The Claimant has obtained a document, by which it is claimed that the said method did increased the nuclear reactors generated output by more than double.  

70.    That ‘Thornton’s OMRE’ nuclear research was extensive, complex and reached a very high level of operation.

71.   That the said ‘OMRE’ nuclear reactor research had great commercial possibilities, particularly to a petro-chemical Multinational.

72.   That Mr (Dr)XXXXXXXXXXX (Shell  have the full name and details of this person)l, former director of the First Defendant, and senior Manager at Thornton Research Centre, was on national Nuclear Oil Panel, along with the Admiralty, Vickers, Rolls Royce and Head Wrightson all of which were contractors to the Polaris nuclear submarine programmes.  The same Mr Kendall was also a member of a joint National Defence/Petroleum industry panel; furthermore, it was the very same Mr XXXX who replied to the Claimant, on or about October 1993, as to whether or not Shell Thornton had a nuclear reactor (that he) ‘couldn’t remember’!  However, when questioned about the near impossibility of not been able to ‘remember’ if Thornton had a nuclear reactor, XXXX seemed somewhat taken aback and conceded ‘Thornton’s’ Strontium-90, but maintained the ‘couldn’t remember’ reactor position.  The Claimant was to find that XXXX XXXX  was not the only former Thornton employee that could not ‘remember’ if Thornton had a nuclear reactor. 

73.  The Claimant has interviewed a (former) senior  ‘Manager’ of the First Defendant’s-Thornton Research Centre.

74.  That the said ‘Manager’ not only recalled the demolition in 1968, he correctly identified its location in/on the First Defendant’s Thornton site.  Furthermore, the said Manager stated that the demolished building was a nuclear reactor/atomic pile, and he further revealed, part of, the said reactors, research programmes.  

75.  As a result, the Claimant undertook research to establish the truth or otherwise of the said ‘Managers’ statements, particularly with regards to the stated ‘Thornton’s’ nuclear research programmes.

76.   That the Claimant was able to establish that the First Defendant and its employees and or agents carried out precisely the nuclear research programmes as stated by the First Defendants Thornton ‘Manager’.  

77.   That the Shell Group and other oil Multinationals believed that ‘nuclear’ research was vital to their future development.  An historical perspective is instructive. Post the Second World War; European oil corporations (and Shell in particular) urgently undertook to develop the ‘chemical’ component of its oil.  Pre 1939, Europe obtained and refined its oil, in the main, from underdeveloped colonial countries, hence the required chemical, cultural expertise and infrastructure, to develop the oils (chemical) possibilities, was not readily available.  Unlike the USA, which, of course, has its own indigenous oil ‘fields’ in abundance, hence chemical producers were at hand to exploit the oils possibilities.  As a consequence of these historic/ geographical facts, Shell and other European oil concerns had ‘neglected’ the chemical qualities/possibilities of their raw product.As the ‘Keynesian’ post-war industrial expansion gathered pace, along with its resulting scientific ‘progress’, Shell’s chemical expertise and capacity needed, and was, to be quickly expanded.     However, the said ‘chemical oil problems’ were greatly exacerbated for the multinationals, by one of the generally unrealised aspects of ‘nuclear research/power’, that is its ability to ‘rearrange’ the atoms electrons field.  For it was believed and feared by the oil/chemical multinationals that the ‘alchemists dream’ could come about, i.e. that an endless and unique number of chemicals could be created, by/with the aid of nuclear chemistry/physics.  Thus, the oil multinationals, which are essentially energy/chemical providers, were alarmed at the development and resulting prospects of nuclear power/research, hence, their essential requirements to be directly involved in nuclear research.  It was impossible in the 1950/60’s to obtain nuclear knowledge without being part of military nuclear research, and its programmes.  The oil corporation’s frantic desire to be at the forefront of nuclear physics/chemistry/research was driven by the fear that not only could they be replaced or supplemented as energy providers, but also that the lucrative and expanding chemicals from oil market would/could be under serious threat.  Each multinational viewed the others progress with alarm and suspicion.  Shell were at a distinct disadvantage with regards to its American oil/chemical rivals in that it had, as a none US Multinational Corporation, limited access to the US’s nuclear research (compared to its said US rivals).  The McMahon (Atomic Energy) Act of 1946, 1954, and the fact that Shell was at the centre of, possibly, America’s most damaging ‘Atomic’ spy scandal meant that Europe’s leading Oil Multinational was forced to seek even closer nuclear ties with the British Establishment.  An Establishment that viewed Shell with some suspicion.  It was a ‘partnership’ borne out of necessity, as the best-applied chemists, and others, were to be found in private industry, rather than the universities- hence the so named military industrial complex thesis.  

78.  The Claimant’s evidence now reveals that Shell undertook such nuclear/chemical research, as outlined in paragraph 77.  Consequently, the First Defendant obtained the required nuclear/ chemical expertise at its Thornton Research Centre set-up (See further ‘bullet’ 2, page 12)  

79.Further, the Claimant’s research findings have now established that the First Defendant and its employees were involved and or carried out nuclear and other research for amongst others:  

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) 

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)

United Kingdom military and others

United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC)

United States of America Air Force (USAAF)

United States of America Army  (USAA)

United States of America Navy  (USAN)

Westcott Rocket Propulsion Laboratory.    

80. The Claimant’s claims concerning the First Defendant’s nuclear research/work/ involvement as set-out from paragraphs 51-79 are supported by extensive and detailed documentation.  The said documentation includes scientific and other papers, contracts, patents, transcripts, correspondence, interviews, tapes, including details of the said contracts and contract numbers.  

81.On or about September 1998, that the Claimant believed that he had now accrued sufficient evidence to contact Shell with his findings.  

82.   On the 9 September 1998, the Claimant wrote to Mr (Dr) Christopher Ernest Fay, Chairman and Chief Executive of the Second Defendant, offering Shell the opportunity to amend and correct its earlier version of events, as set out by the Fourth Defendant in Shell’s Narrative of the 7 February 1994, and to afford Shell the opportunity to act responsibly to its victims.  The Chairman declined to reply.  

83.   That following a further letter, the Sixth Defendant, Richard Wiseman, who is, or was, the Second Defendant’s Legal Director, and, apparently, the First Defendant’s solicitor, wrote to the Claimant on the 24 September 1998.

84.   In his letter of the 24 September 1998, the Sixth Defendant requested that the Claimant forward details of what he intended to publish.  

85.   The Claimant responded to the Sixth Defendant, requesting again, the information that he had previously requested from Mr. Christopher Fay.

86.   That, from or about November 1998 the Sixth Defendant, Shell’s Legal Head, has informed the Claimant, the said Narrative of the 7 February 1994, signed by the Fourth Defendant, Fran Morrison, was and is ‘a mistake’.  The Sixth Defendant has repeatedly restated this.

87.   That the Sixth Defendant, by way of ‘explanation’, claimed that in 1994 the First Defendant’s, (Shell Research Limited) only record of a nuclear building/facility was the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, so Shell’s legal head claims, Shell ‘assumed’ the Cobalt-60 must be the building the Claimant was alleging had been decommissioned in 1968.  The Sixth Defendant further asserts that when Carlton Television failed to write back, following Shell’s submission of the Narrative, it was ‘assumed that Shell must have got it right’, otherwise Carlton would have corrected them!  

88.   That the Sixth Defendant states that he is authorised to speak on behalf of the Shell Group. Hence, the ‘mistake’ defence concerning the Cobalt-60 labyrinth Narrative is the authorised and official position of the Shell Group, which, of course, encompasses the First, Second and Third Defendants.  

89.   The First, Second, Third, Seventh and Ninth Defendants have also maintained the ‘mistake’ position.  

90.   The Sixth Defendant has maintained that the rest of the said Narrative is true. The Claimant has pointed out to the Sixth Defendant in his letter of the 27 June 2000, that the logic of the Sixth Defendant’s, and Shell’s position (that the rest of Shell’s Narrative is true), is that the said Narrative fully validates the nuclear decommissioning personnel (and others) accounts of events at Thornton in 1968.  

91.   In his response letter, of the 28 June, the Sixth Defendant declined to answer or contradict the Claimant, but misleadingly asserted that the Claimant’s ‘allegations’ add nothing to the Claimant’s previous allegations  

92.   That the Claimant, on or about the 26 June 2000, reminded/informed the Fourth Defendant, Fran Morrison, that ‘Shell had dumped a nuclear reactor in 1968, and you employed known criminals and paid them extensive cash payments in order to carry it out.  it was under Rothschild’s.’  The Fourth Defendant replied that she recalled the ‘issue’ but stated that Shell did not support this view.  Responding, the Claimant asserted to the Fourth Defendant (that)  ‘you (she) made a total lie up, a piece of fiction. Shell have since told me that it was a mistake, you said it was the Cobalt-60’.  The Fourth Defendant replied:  ‘I can’t really be accountable for that, I expressed the Company’s view.’  The Fourth Defendant repeatedly insisted that she was ‘just’ an employee of Shell.  

93.   That the Fourth Defendant claimed/stated that she was (only) one of several ‘Shell’ personnel involved in the construction of the Narrative of the 7 February 1994.  

94.   Consequently in the Claimant’s letter of the 27 June 2000 to the Sixth Defendant, Richard Wiseman, the Claimant requested the names of the ‘other’ personnel involved in the construction of the said Narrative, in order to contact then and possibly name/sue them in this action  

95.   The Sixth Defendant has declined to supply the requested information.  

96.   That the Claimant had, an arranged, meeting, at First Defendant’s-Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire, England on Tuesday 12 January 1999, at 2.30 pm. At the said meeting was the Seventh Defendant, Thornton’s general Manager, Mr (Dr) Graeme Sweeney, and Mr (Dr) Ian John Lambert, Occupational Health Unit Stanlow/North West, Head of Medical Services Shell UK and Mr (Dr) Hugh Dorans, Safety Officer Shell Research, Thornton.  

97.   Before the meeting, it was agreed that the meeting would be recorded and the Claimant would be given copies of the recording.  At the close of the meeting, Mr Dorans undertook to post the Claimant his copies of the recordings of the meeting, the following day (13 January).   Despite this the (wrong) tapes were not posted until the following Monday (18 January).  Following the Claimant’s repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr Dorans, the Claimant eventually managed to contact and speak to Mr Dorans on Friday 15 January 1999.  Mr Dorans apologised for the delay claiming that the tapes were not complete as the tape machine kept stopping during recording, hence the recordings were incomplete.  As stated, the wrong tapes were posted to the Claimant on Monday 18 January 1999, the following Wednesday afternoon (20 January) Mr Dorans and others came to the Claimant’s home to collect the ‘wrong’ tapes in return for the ‘correct’ tapes. When the Claimant eventually got the said tapes, he was to find that ‘unfortunately’, it appears that some of the most ‘interesting’ parts of the said meeting had not been recorded.

98.   That following the said meeting the First Defendant’s Mr Hugh Dorans wrote to the Claimant on 18 January 1999 requesting, amongst other things, to interview the Claimant’s witness/interviewees.  

99.   Despite the Claimant acceding to the First Defendant’s request, the Sixth Defendant (and/or the ‘committee’ he passes the Claimant’s letters on to) has specifically refused to sanction the First Defendant’s requested interviews.   

100.  That in view of the serious implications of this ‘issue’ the Claimant has repeatedly sought to carry out his responsibilities with the appropriate care.

101.    That the Claimant has offered on numerous occasions, stretching over 20 months, to make his research findings available to the Shell Group, subject to Shell acting responsibly.  This (acting responsible ‘issue’) has proved to be ‘difficult’.  In order to overcome this ‘difficulty’ the Claimant has repeatedly offered and or suggested means to finding mutually acceptable method(s) to ‘resolve’ this issue, in order that the likely devastation, or to use the Sixth Defendant’s term,  ‘public panic’, be avoided or mitigated.  On every occasion the Claimant’s, offers have been refused, ignored or rejected, and/or proposals have been forwarded to the Claimant in the certain knowledge that they would be unacceptable.

102.  That since the Claimant contacted the Second Defendant on or about the 9 September 1998, the First, Second, Third, Sixth and Ninth Defendants have acted in a wholly irresponsible manner, with regards to the consequences of Shell’s actions in covering up/not acknowledging the wholesale dumping of the First Defendant’s nuclear ‘waste’ in 1968.

103.  That the First, Second, Third, Sixth and Ninth Defendant’s sole concern appears to be the interests of the Shell Group, despite the Sixth Defendant’s undertakings to the Claimant not to act in such a manner. 

104. That the Sixth Defendant did repeatedly assure the Claimant, from on or about November 1998 that he and or the First Defendant would carry out a full investigation, into the Claimant’s  ‘allegations’.  Furthermore, that the Ninth Defendant, the Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading plc Mr Mark Moody-Stuart, did write to the Claimant on or about 8 February 1999, assuring the Claimant that the Second Defendant would ‘follow up with diligence any information supplied’.  

105. In view of the truly horrendous consequences of inappropriate and irresponsible disclosure, the Claimant has put his and his family’s interests second. As a result of his desire to ensure this ‘issue’ is dealt with in the most appropriate manner possible, he has attempted to carry on a dialogue with the First, Second, Third, Sixth and Eighth Defendants, since September 1998, or thereabouts, unfortunately this ‘dialogue’ has been abused and used as a means of prevarication and obliteration, despite numerous undertaking to the contrary.

106.   That the Sixth Defendant has invited the Claimant to initiate Court proceedings, despite the Claimant’s pleadings to resolve the ‘issue’ in a mutually acceptable, reasonable and responsible way.  

107.  That the Sixth Defendant gave as Shell’s Legal Head, undertakings on behalf of the Shell Group, to the Claimant on or about the 22 May 2000 in a telephone conversation, not to employ legal technicalities to defeat the Claimant in his proposed Court action i.e. the substantial issues of the case would be allowed to be heard.  

108.   That the Claimant wrote to the Sixth Defendant on the 31 May 2000, confirming in his letter to the Sixth Defendant, the said undertakings given to the Claimant by the Sixth Defendant that Shell would not employ legal technicalities to defeat the Claimant. 

109.  The Claimant again wrote to the Sixth Defendant on the 9 June 2000, again pointing out the said undertaking.  

110.   In his subsequent letters, the Sixth Defendant has declined to dispute his undertaking.  

111.   On the 31 December 1998, the Claimant interviewed XXXXX (Shell has been informed of this persons name).    XXXX was the First Defendant’s employee and/or agent at the said nuclear decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre in 1968, and gave the decommissioning personnel their instructions.  It was the same Bryan Bradbury that handed over the final bank (cash) letter.  In response to the Claimant asking Bradbury whether, or not, he had informed Shell that it was the Cobalt-60, that had been decommissioned in 1968, as per the said Narrative’s claim, and or whether went along with it (Cobalt-60), XXXX XXXX  interrupted:                                                                                 

      ‘I don’t know what you are talking about, Cobalt-60??,,, Shell. This is going back some years I know.  I remember the interviews here, speaking to Shell, the Directors etc; they took it on themselves, then. That’s the last I have heard of it, and it’s the last I intend to hear of it, and I am not interested in what’s going on’                                                                                                Claimant:    ‘Right, but you did not tell them it was Cobalt-60?’                                                   XXXX:  ‘I have said nothing at all, at any stage, about anything’.                                                                                                                                                                 It follows, from the above, that the personnel and others, charged with tracking down the decommissioned ‘building’ in 1994, chose not to put the Cobalt-60 labyrinth they had uncovered (for which they had no evidence this was the ‘building’ in question) directly to their (Shell’s) own man (XXXX)  ‘in charge’ of the nuclear decommissioning in 1968.  Not to have asked XXXX, Shell’s own man, whether or not they had uncovered the correct ‘building’, before they constructed, and/or forwarded their detailed 2900 word Narrative, to set-out Shell’s official position/defence (with the Group’s very existence being in possible question), to a national television company, simply beggars belief!   Unless, they were perfectly well aware of the truth. Hence, they could not put it to the former Shell employees/individuals at the decommissioning (and others), for the certainty of rejection.  

112.   Furthermore, the Claimant has spoken to another former Shell employee who was directly involved, at the highest level, and he also was not asked or informed about the Cobalt-60 building/Narrative, nor indeed does he appear, like Bradbury, to know anything about the Cobalt-60 labyrinth.  Consequently, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants and (other) Shell Directors were a party to the creation of a sham Narrative, not in spite of the truth, but because of it.  

113. Further, in his letter to the Claimant of the 2 October 1998, the Sixth Defendant, stated that the First Defendant, Shell Research Limited, had ‘provided all of the information needed to respond to the assertions you (the Claimant) have previously made.’                                                                        In view of this claim the Claimant in his letter of the 5 October 1998 responded:  

‘You state that Shell Research Limited has provided all of the information needed to respond to my previous 'assertions'.  Can you please forward details of the individuals that supplied this information and the names of the Harwell personnel present at the demolition of the Cobalt-60 cell, as per Ms Morrison' s letter of the 7th February 1994.’                                                                                           The Sixth Defendant has refused to ‘forward’ the requested information.  

114.   Further, the Sixth Defendant stated and claimed on or about November 1998 that Shell’s Narrative of 7 February 1994 was a. ‘mistake’, because Shell had wrongly ‘assumed’ that the Cobalt-60 labyrinth was the ‘building’ that had been decommissioned by the ‘lads’ in 1968.  However, the only ‘evidence’ Shell and its legal head (the Sixth Defendant) had to ‘reveal’ that Shell’s said Cobalt-60 Narrative was ‘a mistake’ was that supplied and stated to him and Shell, by the Claimant.  Yet before ‘conceding’, to the Claimant that the said Narrative was a ‘mistake’, the Sixth Defendant and Shell did not even attempt to consult their own man at the decommissioning (XXX XXXX), in order to ‘check’ the Claimant’s evidence/assertions out!   

115.   In light of the paragraph 48 (plus subsequent ‘points’) and paragraphs 108-11, the Claimant is perfectly correct and fair in his constant assertions to Shell that the Narrative of the 7 February 1994 was a fraudulent sham.  To quote the Claimant’s letter of the 23 May 2000, to the Sixth Defendant-Shell’s Legal Head;  ‘The Cobalt-60 Narrative, of the 7/2/94, signed by your Media Relations Manager and former BBC current affairs broadcaster, Fran (Frances) Morrison, was a tissue of lies from start to finish’  

116. That the Claimant’s claim is not barred, by Limitations Act 1980, by the following:  

·         That on or about November 1998 the Sixth Defendant, Shell’s Legal Head, informed the Claimant, the said Narrative of the 7 February 1994, is/was ‘a mistake’, furthermore, he and the First, Second, Third, Seventh and Ninth Defendants have consistently maintained this position. That the Limitations Act (1980) clearly states (s 32) where an action from the consequences of a mistake; ‘the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence discovered it.’  

·         Further or in the alternative, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants and or their agents or employees did by constructing a sham Narrative on 7 February 1994, set-out as a deliberate act of policy to conceal the truth from the Claimant. That the said Act clearly states (s 32) where an action from the consequences of concealment; ‘the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence discovered it.’  

·         Further or in the alternative, either the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants and/or their agents or employees were party to constructing a fraudulent Narrative on the 7 February 1994 (see paragraphs 104/5). That the said Act clearly states (s 32) where an action from the consequences of concealment; ‘the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence discovered it.’  

·         Further or in the alternative, it was only on or about September 1998 that the Claimant established the required evidence, the fact that the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants, and or their employees and or agents and or others, had fabricated a sham Narrative on or about the 7 February 1994, deliberate or otherwise.  Furthermore, it was only from November 1998, that the Sixth Defendant (Shell’s legal head) admitted that the Narrative was a mistake.  Consequently, that is the earliest date when the Claimant had sufficient ‘knowledge’ to seek a settlement or start an action. For in realistic terms there is no possibility of an individual suing a conglomerate giant such as Shell without this type of first hand knowledge. Hence, there can be no question of the Claimant being out of time, for if the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants had made the most rudimentary simple check or checks they would have discovered that the said Narrative was either wholly and or substantially incorrect either before, while, or shortly after constructing it.  

·         Further or in the alternative, the Claimant has been in correspondence with, primarily, the Sixth Defendant for over the past 20 months or so, trying to resolve this matter in good faith, without causing public panic and devastation for countless thousands of totally innocent citizens particular those that live, have lived on or around or the dumped nuclear ‘waste’ sites. Further, there will be countless numbers that will believe that the untraced nuclear ‘waste’ is buried in or around them, especially as Merseyside has one of the highest incidents of cancer rates in Europe. `

·         Further or in the alternative, the claimant continued negotiations which were in no small measure due to the Ninth Defendant’s, assurances in his letter of 8 February 1999, that the Second Defendant, Shell UK, ‘would follow up with diligence any information supplied’ That this undertaking has not been honoured and further or in the alternative it and other undertakings/assurances have directly led the Claimant to acceded the limitation period.  

·         Further or in the alternative, the Claimants action has led, and is a consequence of the First Defendants nuclear ‘incident’ in 1968, at its Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire, England.  That the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, s 15 imposes 30 years in respect to claims limitations.  Further, as the First Defendant carried out the deliberate and pre-calculated criminal acts of nuclear dumping, the thirty-year limitation of bringing an action, is null and void.  

·         Further or in the alternative that the 30 years dates from the earliest point of realisation of the said nuclear dumping crimes, i.e. 1988.  

·         Further or in the alternative.  International law, treaties and or agreements forbid the imposition of time limits on what can only be classed as/in the same category as ’War crimes’.  

·         Further or in the alternative, the Claimant has had to visit the said identified deposit/dump sites utilised for the First Defendants nuclear waste on an ongoing basis, thereby the exposure and/or emotional injury and damage suffered by and to the Claimant is presently (‘last’) dated from on or about April 2000.  

117.  That the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight and Ninth Defendants have all either participated in the illegal cover up of the said nuclear ‘dumping’ crimes, and/or had reason to believe that such crimes were committed in 1968, as set-out.  

118. That officers (Directors) of the First, Second and Third Defendants and the Shell Group as a whole have conspired to deny the truth of the wholesale disposing/dumping of the First Defendants nuclear materials/waste in 1968.  

119. That by knowingly, further or in the alternative, constructing a sham Narrative, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants, have denied the Claimant his rightful place as the foremost individual to have uncovered the most serious crimes committed by a multinational corporation.   

120.  That the said research findings of the Claimant constitute the most significant ‘scoop’, ever, concerning a known corporate crime.  

121.   That the Defendant’s owed a Duty of Care to the Claimant.  

122.  That the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Defendants did deny the Claimant his rightful right and or claims.  

123.  That the Claimant’s claim for damages and losses date from the construction of the said Narrative of  7 February 1994.

124. That by constructing a sham Narrative, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants have denied the Claimant worldwide fame, with its resulting financial and other rewards.  

125.   That from November 1998, or thereabouts, the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Defendants knew or were aware or had reason to believe that the Claimant’s allegations were and are substantially correct.  

126.    That the Sixth and Ninth Defendants have since November 1998, or thereabouts, sought to deny the Claimant ‘s allegations and hence further deny the Claimant his proper rewards.  That by denying the said  ‘scandal’, which is undoubtedly the worlds worst, known/ exposed, corporate crime. That the Defendants have denied the Claimant his proper monetary rewards and resulting fame, which would have been be immense.  

127.   That the Claimant and his family have suffered poverty, depression, humiliation and deprivation as a direct result of the construction of the said Narrative, by the First, Second, Third, Fourth Fifth and Eighth Defendant’s.  

128.    That the Claimant has suffered substantially from lack of pension provision, from or about 7 February 1994, to date as a direct result of the construction of the said Narrative.  

129.      That in view of the Claimant’s age, the six years that have elapsed since 7 February 1994 has dealt the Claimant’s chances of pursuing a career as a serious journalists a grave and/or mortal blow by the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendant’s construction of the Narrative of the 7 February 1994.  That the Claimant has suffered damage and loss as result.  

130.  That the Claimant claims exemplary damages as the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants said Narrative of the 7 February 1994 was calculated to produce a profit, in excess of the Claimants claimed exemplary damages. Further or in the alternative exemplary damages will enable the Court to express its disapproval, distain and disgust at the outrageous actions of the First, Second and Third and their servants and or employees and or agents.  Further or in the alternative that the First, Second, Third Defendants and their servants and or employees did outrageously disregard the Claimant’s rights  

131.  That the Claimant claims interest on the said damages.  

132.   That the Claimant claims losses from the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Defendants.  

133.  That the Claimant claims interest for the said losses.  

134. That the Claimant claims aggravated damages by virtue of the deliberate concealment of the truth of the nuclear decommissioning in 1968, at the First Defendant’s Thornton Research Centre. That the said Defendant’s conduct has been motivated by wholly improper  desire of concealment.  

PARTICULARS

1.       That the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants constructed, and/or were party to the construction of a fraudulent (sham) Narrative dated 7 February 1994.  That as a result the Claimant has suffered substantial loss and damage.   

2.       Further or in the alternative, an untruthful Narrative (of 7 February 1994)  which could and should have been avoided by carrying out the most rudimentary check or checks. That as a result the Claimant has suffered substantial loss damage and hurt.   

3.       That the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants owed a Duty of Care to the Claimant. That as a result the Claimant has suffered substantial loss, damage and hurt.  

4.       That the First, Second, Third, fourth and Eighth Defendants made and/or condoned the most scandalous, shameless serious of allegations to the ITC, Carlton Television and Twenty-Twenty Television, and others, regarding the Claimant’s integrity, research methods and, alleged, harassment and mistreatment of ‘elderly Shell pensioners’.  That the Claimant was lowered in the estimation of all reasonable thinking people, and in particular the Independent Television Commission (ITC), Carlton Television and Twenty-Twenty Television.  That the Claimant has suffered substantial loss damages and hurt as a result.  

5.       That the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants owed a Duty of Care to the Claimant. That as a result the Claimant has suffered substantial loss, damage and hurt.  

6.       That from the 7 February 1994, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth  Defendant’s Narrative, was designed to, and resulted in the cover-up of the worlds most serious (exposed) corporate crime. That as a result the Claimant has suffered substantial loss and damage and hurt.   

7.       That the Claimant lives in and or around, or by or is likely and/or could have suffered from the effects of the First Defendant’s illegal disposing/dumping of it nuclear ‘materials/ waste’. That as a result the Claimant has suffered, psychological damage and other damage and hurt.  

8.       That the Claimant has been forced to revisit the First Defendants identified nuclear ‘dump/deposit’ sites as a result of the construction of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh Defendant’s Narrative of 7 February 1994. That as a result the Claimant has suffered, psychological damage and other damage and hurt.  

9.       That the Sixth, Seventh and Nineth Defendants became aware of the truth and/or at least a substantial part of and or could have establish the truth in or about 1998.  That as a result the Claimant has suffered substantial loss and damage and hurt.   

10.   That the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Defendants owed a Duty of Care to the Claimant. That as a result of the breach of that duty of care the Claimant has suffered substantial loss, damage and hurt.  

11.   That the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Defendants have engaged in a policy of concealment of the said nuclear decommissioning in 1968, at the First Defendant’s Thornton Research Centre. That the said Defendant’s conduct has been motivated by wholly improper desire of concealment, that Claimant claims Aggravated Damages.  

12.   That the First, Second and Third Defendants and/or their agents, either did directly or indirectly employ personnel to keep the Claimant under surveillance, and did directly or indirectly employ personnel to ‘tap’ the Claimant’s telephone, did either directly or indirectly employ personnel to intercept the Claimant's mail and on occasion kept and or destroyed the said mail, and that the Claimant’s suffered loss, damages and hurt as a result.  

·         That the First, Second and Third Defendants and/or their agents either did directly or indirectly employ personnel that posed as debt collectors and the said ‘debt collectors’ did attempt to enter the Claimant’s home or gain access to the Claimant.  That these outrageous acts were in violation of the Claimant’s civil rights and that the Claimant’s suffered loss damages and hurt as a result.  

·         That the First, Second and Third Defendants and/or their agents, either did directly or indirectly employ personnel that posed as a representative of the Royal Mail, and the said ‘Royal Mail repetitive’ did attempt to enter the Claimant’s home and/or gain access to the Claimant. That this outrageous act was in violation of the Claimant’s civil rights and that the Claimant’s suffered loss damages and hurt as a result.  

·         That the First, Second and Third Defendants and or their agents did circulate damaging allegations, concerning the Claimant’s integrity and that Claimant’s suffered loss damages and hurt as a result.  

·         That the First, Second and Third Defendants placed, and or authorised, a ‘warning’ notice, or notices, in Shell’s house magazine for retired Shell personnel, regarding the Claimant’s alleged motives.   

·         That the First Defendant, and or their employees or agents, did place on the Thornton Research Centre staff notice board, a ‘warning’ to staff and others, not to speak to the Claimant, alleging that the Claimant was a sensation-seeking journalist.  

·         That the First, Second and Fourth Defendant waged an entirely unwarranted and shameful campaign of personal, hurtful and humiliating abuse against the Claimant. That as a result the Claimant has suffered loss, damage and hurt.  

·         That First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants did engage in a knowingly untrue campaign of vilifying the Claimant. That as a result the Claimant has suffered substantial loss, damage and hurt.

·         That the First, Second, Third, Defendants did circulate the most damaging allegations, concerning the Claimant’s integrity and purpose. That as a result the Claimant has suffered loss, damage and hurt.  

·         That the First, Second, Third, Defendants did order and sanction the contacting of, mainly, former Shell employees and ‘encouraging’ the said personnel to ‘confirm’ untrue allegations concerning the Claimant’s alleged conduct.  That as a result the Claimant has suffered loss, damage and hurt.  

13.   Misrepresentation

·         By the construction of the Narrative of 7 February 1994 the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Defendants made, and/or continue to make misrepresentation and or misrepresentations to the Claimant.

·         That the said Defendants owed a duty of care to the Claimant.

·         That the misrepresentation and or misrepresentations turned out to be untrue.

·         As a result the Claimant has suffered substantial damage and hurt.

14.  Negligence.

·         That the First, Second and Third Defendants were negligent in that they should have ensured that their employees and/or agents did not construct the said sham Narrative of 7 February 1994.

·         Further or in the alternative the First, Second and Third Defendants were negligent in that they should have ensured that the most elementary checks regarding the authenticity of the said Narrative were carried out.

·         Further or in the alternative the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants were negligent in that they could and should have refused to countenance and sanction the construction of the said sham Narrative of 7 February 1994.

·         Further or in the alternative the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Defendants were negligent in that they could and should have refused to carry on the cover-up of the said crimes

·         There was a duty of care between the Claimant and the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Defendants.

·         While the duty of care was operative the Claimant was injured.

·         This injury was caused by the said Defendants.

·         As a result the Claimant has suffered substantial loss and damage.  

15.   By reason of the matters aforesaid the Claimant has suffered substantial loss and damage and hurt

PARTICULARS OF DAMAGE  

16.   That by knowingly, further or in the alternative, constructing a ‘sham’ Narrative, (dated 7 February 1994) along with a sustained campaign of unwarranted personal/professional abuse and vilification against the Claimant, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Defendants have denied the Claimant the extensive financial rewards that would have accrued to him by virtue of his exclusive research findings.  By way of example, television, books, royalties, lecture tours, films, personal endorsements, newspaper articles, and other media contracts. The Claimant would on a conservative bases expect to earn, (is calculated at) £1,700,000 per year X 6 years 5 months = £10,908,330.  (7 February 1994 to 7 July 2000).  

17.   The Claimant further claims to be entitled to interest at the rate of  % from 7 February 1994 until 20 July 2000 being £  and thereafter at the daily rate £   until judgement or sooner payment, pursuant to Section 35A Supreme Court Act 1981.  

18.   The Claimant claims Exemplary Damages of £20,000,000 from the First, Second, Third, Fourth,  Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Defendants. That the First, Second, Third Defendant’s in particular, and the Shell Group in general, would be liable to those affected by the wholesale disposing and dumping of the First Defendants nuclear ‘waste’, for damages running into hundreds if not thousands of millions of pounds if the said Narrative of the 7 February 1994 had not been constructed. Hence the said Narrative was calculated to avoid  the payment of damages to appropriate claimants, and to produce a ‘profit’ substantially more the Claimants exemplary damages claim. Further or in the alternative exemplary damages will enable the Court to express its disdain and disgust at the outrageous actions of the First, Second and Third and their servants and or employees and or agents.  Further or in the alternative that the First, Second, Third Defendants and their servants and or employees did outrageously disregard the Claimants rights.   

19.   The Claimant further claims to be entitled to interest at the rate of % from 7 February 1994 until 20 July 2000 being £  and thereafter at the daily rate £   until judgement or sooner payment, pursuant to Section 35A Supreme Court Act 1981.  

20.   The Claimant claims damages including Aggravated Damages from the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth  and Ninth Defendants.   

21.   The Claimant further claims to be entitled to interest at the rate of  % from 7 February 1994 until 20 July 2000 being £  and thereafter at the daily rate £   until judgement or sooner payment, pursuant to Section 35A Supreme Court Act 1981  

PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE

Particulars of the special damages suffered by the Claimant are (to be) set out in the Schedule of Special Damages attached to the Particulars of Claim.

AND the Claimant claims:  

1.       Losses  of £10,908,303.

2.       Interest in pursuant as aforesaid.

3.       Exemplary damages of £20,000.000.

4.       Interest in pursuant as aforesaid.

5.       Damages including aggravated damages.

6.       Interest in pursuant as aforesaid.

7.       Costs

Statement of Truth.

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.

John Alfred Dyer.

(Shell's reply)