Survivors of Typhoon Rai, one of the Philippines’ most destructive storms of 2021, have filed a legal claim in the UK against oil and gas giant Shell, arguing the company contributed to the severity of the disaster. The case, submitted to the Royal Courts of Justice, is believed to be the first of its kind brought against a major UK-based fossil fuel producer by victims of a climate-linked extreme weather event.
Typhoon Rai, known locally as Odette, struck just before Christmas with winds reaching 170 mph (270 km/h). It killed around 400 people, damaged or destroyed thousands of buildings, and displaced hundreds of thousands across the archipelago.
Among the claimants is Trixy Elle, a former fish vendor from Batasan Island, who fled her home as water engulfed her community. “We have to swim in the middle of big waves, heavy rains, strong winds,” she said. “If we survive, we survive, but if we die, we die together.”
She is one of 103 survivors seeking compensation.
Claimants Argue Shell Played a Role in Intensifying the Disaster
In their pre-action letter, the survivors’ legal team argues that Shell is responsible for 2% of historical global greenhouse gas emissions, citing data from the Carbon Majors database. They claim the company has “materially contributed” to human-driven climate change and, in doing so, increased the likelihood and intensity of Typhoon Rai.
They further allege that Shell has a “history of climate misinformation” and possessed knowledge as early as the 1960s about the climate risks associated with fossil fuel use yet continued expanding production.
“It’s very clear that they choose profit over the people,” Trixy Elle said. “They choose money over the planet.”
The lawsuit is filed in the UK because Shell is domiciled there, though the claimants expect Philippine law to apply because that is where the harm occurred.
Shell Rejects the Allegations
Shell has strongly denied the claims, describing the case as “baseless.” A spokesperson said the company does not accept that its activities can be tied to this individual storm, nor that it had “unique knowledge” about climate change that others did not.
“The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true,” the spokesperson said, emphasising that climate science has been part of global research and public discussion for decades.
A Test of Climate Attribution Science and the Courts’ Willingness to Act
Environmental groups backing the case argue that scientific advances now allow researchers to estimate the degree to which climate change influences specific extreme weather events. They believe this growing field of attribution science offers a path for courts to link damages from storms, floods or heatwaves to major fossil fuel producers.
Climate law specialist Harj Narulla, who is not connected to the case, said proving liability is still complex but the threshold has shifted. “It’s traditionally a high bar, but both science and the law have lowered that bar significantly in recent years,” he said. This will be the first time UK courts assess attribution evidence in such detail.
International legal outcomes have been mixed. Several U.S. lawsuits against oil and gas companies have failed, while Dutch campaigners briefly won a 2021 judgment ordering Shell to cut emissions by 45%, a ruling later overturned on appeal, though the court reaffirmed Shell’s responsibility to mitigate climate harms.
A Long Legal Road Ahead
While the filing marks a significant step, the process is only beginning. The survivors are expected to submit detailed particulars of their claim by mid-next year. Whatever the outcome, this case signals a shift in how climate-impacted communities are seeking redress not only through political channels, but through the courts.
For the claimants, the lawsuit is about accountability as much as compensation. As Trixy Elle put it, their goal is to ensure companies “cannot simply walk away” from the consequences of a warming world.
References:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r9p1ypyjyo
