ESG in the Spotlight: A Legal Battle Between Typhoon Rai Survivors and Shell

On 9 December 2025, a group of survivors of Typhoon Rai in the Philippines, issued a legal claim against Shell Plc and Shell Transport and Trading Company Plc, seeking to directly link the fossil fuel giant’s global emissions to harm caused by the storm. Despite it being difficult to prove a causal link between emissions released into the atmosphere to acute environmental disasters abroad, this and other recent cases are seeking to target UK-headquartered parent companies as ultimately responsible for damage suffered in other jurisdictions which are allegedly caused by their activities. 

This comes as the courts seem to be increasingly the battlefield for climate accountability, as those directly affected by the climate crisis seek justice and compensation for harm caused. In this case, it is alleged that through its global supply of oil and gas, Shell directly contributed to the severity and strength of the storm. 

Typhoon Rai and recent cases

Hitting the Philippines in December 2021, Typhoon Rai reached wind speeds of 170mph, causing severe property damage and the deaths of 400 people. The storm had a devastating effect on the country’s infrastructure and led to the widespread displacement of people. Whilst typhoons are not uncommon in the region, the storm was the most powerful to hit the Philippines in 2021. 

103 survivors of the typhoon have now issued proceedings against Shell to seek compensation. The claim has been issued in the courts of England and Wales as this is where Shell Plc is incorporated, but the case will be based on Philippine law reflecting the location of the damage caused by the storm. 

The Proceedings

The claimants are claiming damages in relation to losses caused by the typhoon, including property damage, personal injury, bereavement, psychological trauma and loss of earnings. It is alleged that Shell materially contributed towards the acceleration of Anthropogenic Climate change (climate change occurring at an unnaturally fast rate as a result of human activity) given that they are responsible for 2-3% of historical global greenhouse gas emissions. It is further alleged that Shell had unique internal knowledge as to the effects of fossil fuels on climate change and, in spite of this, continued their business strategy. 

The case also seeks to rely upon emerging science which seeks to directly attribute increasingly extreme weather events to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The claimants are attempting to demonstrate a direct link between Shell’s historical greenhouse gas emissions and the increased severity of the typhoon. In response, Shell has denied their production of oil and gas has contributed to the natural disaster and deny withholding any alleged unique knowledge regarding climate change. 

The outcome will be far-reaching if the decision directly links extreme natural disasters to the actions of fossil fuel companies. With no company having yet to pay out for damages linked to the climate crisis via the Courts, we will be watching to see how the Court tackles questions of causation and liability in this unique claim.

Co-authored by Francesca Gransden, Christopher Wenn and Max Callus