Lawyer Says “Esso” Wrongly Named By DPP In Court Proceedings For Alleged Release Or Spill Of Dangerous Substances & A Failure To Report
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
In the Summary Court today, December 16, 2025, an attorney acting on behalf of a United States oil company brought to Magistrate Gunn’s attention that although ESSO Standard Oil Company (ESSO) is named in court proceedings for an alleged failure to report the release or spill of dangerous substances, there are issues with the court documents. The problems included alleged errors in not naming the proper party to the proceedings, and the court not having jurisdiction over the company, which is a United States-domiciled company. In the circumstances, the attorney said he was instructed to reject the service of the court summons. The case was adjourned pending further discussions with the Utility Regulation and Competition Office (OfReg) and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Based on the summons sent to ESSO, OfReg alleged that ESSO “being the operator of regulated premises at Jackson Point Bulk Fuel Terminal, South Church Street, George Town, Grand Cayman, failed to report the release or spill of dangerous substances in its ownership, control or possession.”
The statement of offence noted that Esso was being charged with “failing to report” which is contrary to Section 13(1) of the Dangerous Substances Act (2017 Revision).
However, the defence attorney present and instructed by Exxon noted several issues with the summons.
First, the entity named in the summons is Esso Standard Oil Company. However, Esso Standard Oil Company was never domiciled or operated in the Cayman Islands.
The defence attorney added:
In fact, it’s a Delaware company.
And after several mergers and name-changing, it is now ExxonMobil Corporation, which is the new Jersey operating company… that has never been domiciled or operated in the Cayman Islands.
He continued:
So, we have issue as to the proper party and I’m expressly instructed to note or to say to the court… that Exxon does not submit to the jurisdiction and I am expressly instructed not to accept service of any procedure.
The attorney then requested an application to adjourn the case to discuss the matters with the DPP and OfReg. Magistrate Gunn agreed to adjourn the matter to February 2026.
It was noted in court that SOL Petroleum Cayman Ltd. was also served a summons to attend court.
The statement of offence stated as follows:
SOL PETROLEUM, in the month of May 2025 in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, being the operator of Regulated premises at Jackson Point Bulk Fuel Terminal, South Church Street, George Town, Grand Cayman, failed to report the release or spill of dangerous substances in its ownership, control or possession.
SOL is also charged under the Dangerous Substances Act.
A separate defence attorney appearing in court on behalf of Sol noted that she had just received papers on the matter. She added that she did not have an issue with the matter being adjourned to February 2026.
Note to readers:
This article refers to allegations only, and there is no indication of guilt. A final determination will be made after relevant facts are presented and decided upon.
Regarding the “ESSO” name, the Exxon Mobil website ( https://www.exxon.com/en/history ) states the following:
Our story began in 1870 when John D. Rockefeller and his associates formed the Standard Oil Company (Ohio). In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court divided Standard Oil into 33 different companies, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (Jersey Standard), Socony Oil, Vacuum Oil and some companies that retained the name Standard Oil.
In many states, Jersey Standard marketed its products under the brand ‘Esso’, which is the phonetic pronunciation of the initials ‘S’ and ‘O’ in Standard Oil. However in other states, the other Standard Oil companies objected. In those states, Jersey Standard marketed under the brands Enco (Energy Company) and Humble (an oil company they acquired). Jersey Standard became Exxon Corporation in 1972 and in 1999 joined with Mobil Oil Corporation, formerly Socony-Vacuum Oil, to form Exxon Mobil Corporation.
Regarding errors made in previous court cases, there are several examples where defence attorneys complained about clumsy drafting. Some of these are below.
