The case is the first civil claim to directly link the climate impacts of oil and gas companies to death and personal injury that has already occurred in the Global South.
London, 23rd October.
Shell is set to be taken to court over its role in causing Typhoon Odette in the Philippines, according to a Letter Before Action (LBA) delivered to Shell HQ in London. Typhoon Odette, which struck the Philippines on 16 December 2021, killed over 400 people, severely injured over 1,000 more and destroyed 1.4 million homes.
Shell has been notified of intended legal proceedings on behalf of 67 Filipino citizens who lost family members, were seriously injured or lost their homes in the storm. They are seeking financial compensation for the damage they suffered, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, and potential injunctive relief to prevent further violations of their right to a healthy environment. The claim alleges that Shell’s actions contributed to anthropogenic climate change, making Typhoon Odette significantly more likely and more severe.
Trixy Elle, Typhoon Odette survivor and claimant: “With fossil fuel emissions being linked to stronger tropical storms like Odette, vulnerable communities like ours are struggling to keep their head above water. This is not acceptable, this is not just, and we must fight.”
This case is the first civil claim to directly link the climate impacts of oil and gas companies to death and personal injury that has already occurred in the Global South. It draws on recent advances in climate attribution science, which can now directly attribute individual extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change. Over 600 studies have now attributed extreme weather events to the results of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
In particular the case references a recent academic study by leading international climate scientists which found that anthropogenic climate change “more than doubled the likelihood of a compound event like Typhoon Odette”.
The case targets Shell due to its high historic emissions and early knowledge of the causes and effects of climate change. The Carbon Majors database notes that Shell is responsible for 41bn tonnes of CO2e between 1892 and 2023 – over 2.5% of global fossil fuel emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution - making it one of the largest corporate emitters of greenhouse gases in history. By contrast, The Philippines has contributed just 0.2% of global CO2 emissions.
An academic review of historical documents reveals that Shell knew, from 1965 at the latest, that the production and combustion of fossil fuels was increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere and was the primary cause of climate change.
Leaked internal documents have also revealed an internal Shell climate science program dating back to 1981. They detail Shell’s extensive knowledge of its own role in causing climate change and the negative impacts this would have, including the observation that “developing nations will be particularly affected”.
The case will argue that Shell’s decisions to continue the production of oil and gas despite this knowledge constitutes negligence and willful violation of the constitutional rights of the Claimants, including their right to a balanced and healthy environment. It will also highlight Shell’s deliberate deception and efforts to slow down the energy transition away from fossil fuels by engaging in lobbying, disinformation, and obfuscation of climate science.
Tessa Khan, International Climate Change Lawyer and Executive Director of Uplift, said: “For years, Shell knew fossil fuels could cause dangerous climate change. They had the chance to change course. Instead, they misled the public and helped block our shift to clean energy, all to protect their profits. Now we’re all paying the price with typhoons, floods, and fires. These weather events are not natural – they are unnatural disasters caused by fossil fuels. They are destroying what we love, and their frequency and severity are increasing.”
The case is supported by a recent report from the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, which assessed the role of major fossil fuel companies in the climate crisis and their impact on human rights in the Philippines. The report concluded that companies like Shell could be held legally responsible under Philippine law given their awareness of the harm their activities cause to the climate.
Legal proceedings
The sending of the Letter Before Action (LBA) is the first step in the litigation process in England. It sets out the details of the claim and invites Shell to respond. If no agreement can be reached, and if Shell cannot respond satisfactorily to the allegations, the next stage is to formally issue proceedings in court which would then take place in December 2025.
Consistent with well-established legal principles, the case will be brought in the UK courts, where the decision-making relating to Shell’s actions took place, but apply the law of the Philippines, where the harm occurred.
The case is the latest in a growing list of climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. A September 2024 briefing by Oil Change International found that 86 cases had been filed to date, with 33 of these cases relating to the companies’ responsibility for damages caused by the impacts of climate change such as extreme weather.
The potential liabilities for fossil fuel companies are substantial. The climate policy institute Climate Analytics calculated the climate damages attributable to the largest 25 oil and gas companies at over $20 trillion.
So far, no oil and gas company has had to pay liability for damages associated with climate change. If the case is successful, it could set a precedent for similar claims against other companies whose activities contribute to climate change, turning potential liabilities into real costs.
Greg Lascelles, Partner at Hausfeld, leading the legal team: “The case seeks to hold Shell accountable to our Filipino clients. By proving in court that Shell was at fault for this climate change-driven extreme weather event and the suffering it caused, the case highlights the far-reaching and direct impacts on vulnerable communities worldwide of oil and gas company activities”.