A storm, devastation and a new fight for justice
On December 16, 2021, Super Typhoon Odette (also known internationally as Typhoon Rai) slammed into the central Philippines, killing over 400 people, displacing nearly 3.2 million and destroying more than one million homes.
Now, a group of 67 Filipino survivors from Visayas and Mindanao are bringing a legal action against Royal Dutch Shell plc (Shell), the oil-and-gas giant, accusing it of contributing to climate change that made the storm worse and of failing to avert foreseeable harm.
They have sent a “Letter Before Action” to the company, giving it a chance to respond before a lawsuit is filed in the UK in December.
What the claimants allege
- The lawsuit argues that Shell’s historical and current greenhouse gas emissions contributed materially to global warming, which in turn increased the severity and probability of extreme weather events like Odette.
- It also claims that Shell engaged in climate-disinformation, concealed what it knew about climate risks and kept expanding fossil-fuel operations despite this knowledge.
- The legal basis includes Filipino constitutional rights to a healthy environment and duties under international human-rights frameworks. The case will be heard in UK courts using Philippine law for the substantive rights.
- The survivors are seeking financial compensation for personal injuries, loss of home and livelihood, plus preventive/structural injunctive relief to stop further harm.
Why this case is ground-breaking
- It is the first major civil case of its kind to directly link a fossil-fuel company with an already-happened extreme weather event and deaths and injuries in the Global South.
- Previous climate suits often focus on future harm or regulatory failures; this one targets retrospective liability for historic disaster damage.
- It is timed ahead of the UN climate summit (COP30) as part of an emerging strategy of loss-and-damage litigation against major polluters.
Shell’s response and the challenges ahead
- Shell has rejected the claim that it had “unique knowledge” of climate change and denies it is directly legally liable for the typhoon’s damage.
- The company points out that climate change is a global problem, that its emissions are only a part of the whole, and that attributing a specific storm to one company is legally and scientifically complex.
- Scientific attribution is improving — a study cited by the claimants says human-caused climate change more than doubled the odds of a storm like Odette.
- Legal hurdles remain high: proving causation, quantifying company-specific contributions, applying foreign law, and navigating jurisdictional and procedural issues.
What’s at stake
- For the claimants: justice, recognition and potential compensation for lives lost, homes destroyed and livelihoods interrupted. One claimant, Trixy Elle, said the fight is for her children’s future and for those who bore the brunt of the crisis.
- For Shell & the fossil-fuel industry: This could open a new frontier of liability — if successful, many other communities worldwide might follow with similar claims.
- For climate policy and corporate behaviour: A win would strengthen the “polluter pays” principle, push firms more aggressively to decarbonise and shape how adaptation and loss-and-damage finance are framed.
Key questions to watch
- Will Shell engage and reach a settlement or will the case proceed to full trial in UK courts?
- How will courts handle scientific attribution linking emissions to a specific typhoon and to a particular company?
- Will this influence industry behaviour, shift corporate risk assessments or change how companies disclose climate risk and historical knowledge?
- Could this spark a wave of similar lawsuits from vulnerable communities in Asia, Africa or Small Island Developing States?
The takeaway
This lawsuit from Philippine typhoon survivors marks a watershed moment: it challenges the notion that fossil-fuel companies can escape accountability for climate-driven disaster damage. Whether or not the case succeeds, it raises urgent moral, legal and economic questions about responsibility, justice and the costs of climate change — especially borne by those least responsible and most vulnerable.
