On December 16, 2021, Super Typhoon Odette—known internationally as Rai—swept through the central Philippines, leaving devastation in its wake. More than 400 people lost their lives and 1.4 million homes were destroyed, according to figures cited by The Odette Case campaign and multiple news outlets. The storm, the strongest to hit the country that year, affected over six million people and caused damages estimated at nearly US$1 billion, including US$596 million in infrastructure losses. For survivors, the trauma and loss were overwhelming. But now, almost four years later, a group of 67 Filipinos from the hardest-hit coastal and island communities are taking an unprecedented step: they are suing Shell, one of the world’s largest oil companies, in the United Kingdom, alleging the company’s carbon emissions and decades of climate denial made the disaster deadlier.
On October 23, 2025, UK-based law firm Hausfeld served a formal Letter Before Action to Shell’s headquarters in London on behalf of these survivors. The legal move, supported by Greenpeace Philippines, the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Centre (LRC), the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ), and Uplift, could soon evolve into a landmark civil case. If Shell does not respond satisfactorily, the claimants plan to formally file suit in British courts by December 2025, seeking both financial compensation and court-ordered changes to Shell’s business practices.
This lawsuit is described by campaigners and legal experts as the first civil claim to directly connect the greenhouse gas emissions of a fossil fuel company to specific deaths and injuries from a past disaster in the Global South. According to Eco-Business and Greenpeace, previous cases—such as a criminal suit against TotalEnergies’ board and a Peruvian farmer’s civil suit against German energy giant RWE—either targeted future impacts or sought criminal punishment, not direct compensation for a specific disaster already suffered.
The legal arguments rest on Philippine law—specifically, principles of quasi-delicts, unjust enrichment, and constitutional rights to a balanced and healthy ecology. But because Shell is headquartered in the UK, the case must be filed in British courts under international conflict-of-law rules, applying Philippine legal standards. The claimants hope to establish Shell’s liability under the “polluter pays” principle, which holds that those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of managing it and compensating victims.
At the heart of the case is a growing body of climate attribution science. As reported by The Odette Case and Eco-Business, studies from the Centre for Environmental Policy, the Grantham Institute, and the University of Sheffield have found that human-induced climate change more than doubled the likelihood of extreme storm events like Odette. The World Weather Attribution service further concluded that rising global temperatures have exacerbated the conditions that enable powerful typhoons to form in the Philippine Sea, including warmer waters and higher humidity. Over 600 peer-reviewed studies now link fossil fuel-driven greenhouse gas emissions to increasingly severe storms, floods, and heatwaves worldwide.
Why target Shell? According to the Carbon Majors database and The Odette Case, Shell is responsible for an estimated 41 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions from 1892 to 2023—about 2.5% of all industrial-era global emissions. Leaked documents and academic reviews reveal that Shell knew as early as 1965 that fossil fuels were altering the climate. An internal Shell document from 1988 warned of “dramatic” effects, especially for developing nations. Yet, claimants allege, Shell continued to expand oil and gas operations, lobbied against climate action, and spread misinformation about climate change’s dangers.
“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,” said Tessa Khan, international climate lawyer and executive director of Uplift, as quoted by The Odette Case.
The lawsuit is not just about holding a multinational corporation to account—it’s about the lived experiences of ordinary people. The 67 claimants come from communities in Ubay and Tubigon in Bohol, Toledo and Mandaue in Cebu, and the small islands of Batasan and Inanuran. Their stories are harrowing. Annie, a 54-year-old fishmonger from Batasan, told Eco-Business, “Before Typhoon Odette, we used to catch a decent number of fish. But now, the amount is getting smaller and smaller, and sometimes we’re lucky if we catch just a few kilos.” Hazel, 27, from Inanuran, described returning from evacuation to find her house washed into the sea. For months, she and her husband lived in a tent, haunted by the fear of another disaster. Arnold, a fisherman from Bilangbilangan, nearly drowned as Odette tore through his home. “This battle is not only for me, but also for my children. This could help us in a lot of ways and I could help fight for future generations,” he said.
The claimants seek damages for lost loved ones, psychological trauma, lost earnings, and the destruction of homes and livelihoods. Annie Casquejo, another claimant, explained, “If we win the case, Shell will pay us damages. At least we will be able to recover the properties we have saved for years so that we can leave something for our grandchildren. It is not just about money, it is also about justice.”
Shell, for its part, disputes the allegations. A company spokesperson told Eco-Business and Dutch news agency ANP, “The idea that Shell had unique knowledge of climate change is simply false. We agree that action against climate change is necessary.” The spokesperson added, “As we supply vital energy the world needs today, we are transforming our business to supply lower-carbon fuels for the future.” Shell also pointed out that the issue of climate change has been a matter of public discussion and scientific research for decades, and that its position on the topic has been publicly documented in annual and sustainability reports. The company even produced a documentary, “Climate of Concern,” in 1991, which was made available to the public.
The legal team for the claimants, led by Greg Lascelles of Hausfeld, argues that the case could set a global precedent. “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,” Lascelles said, as quoted by The Odette Case.
This lawsuit comes amid a global surge in climate litigation. According to Oil Change International, at least 86 cases targeting fossil fuel companies have been filed worldwide, with 33 focusing on corporate responsibility for climate-related damages. Yet, to date, no fossil fuel company has been forced to pay compensation for such harms. A successful outcome for the Odette claimants could turn potential liabilities into real financial consequences for polluters, sending a powerful signal to the industry.
The case also follows a 2022 report by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, which found that 47 major fossil fuel companies, including Shell, could be held morally and legally responsible for human rights violations linked to climate damage. The International Court of Justice ruled in July 2025 that states have a legal duty to monitor the emissions of corporations, including energy producers, and that companies can be held responsible for resulting harms.
For the Odette survivors, the case is about more than compensation. As the campaign declares, “From fighting for survival to fighting for justice, the claimants in this case are using the law to hold Shell accountable for its contribution to Super Typhoon Odette.” Whether or not they prevail in court, their fight marks a turning point in the global struggle for climate justice—and a reminder that those most affected by climate change are demanding to be heard.
