Author: admin

More than 100 Filipino survivors of Super Typhoon Rai (known as Typhoon Odette) have issued proceedings in the UK against Shell.

It is alleged that Shell’s historic and ongoing greenhouse gas emissions materially contributed to climate change and to the widespread damage caused by the typhoon which took place just before Christmas 2021. The claimants issued proceedings in the UK on 9 December 2025 and the claim is the first of its kind in the UK. The question being whether major emitters of fossil fuels have a corporate liability for climate related losses.

As we previously reported, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Hamm in Germany confirmed in Lliuya v RWE AG [28.05.25] that major fossil fuel emitters may be liable for climate-related risks. The claim (which applied German law) ultimately failed due to the court’s decision that the threat of harm was insufficiently imminent at the time.

This Shell case however is fundamentally different in that not only will it be applying Filipino law in the UK courts, but the claim itself does not relate to future risks or protective measures.  Instead, it concerns the  personal injury and property damage already suffered by the claimants, meaning  the UK courts will have to take things one step further than the German Higher Court. 

A spokesperson for Shell has described the proceedings as “baseless,” rejecting the premise that the company possesses any “unique knowledge” concerning climate change or that litigation is the appropriate solution for addressing global climate issues.

Detailed Particulars of Claim are expected in mid-2026.

The claim represents a further step in the gradual but distinct shift towards global climate litigation against corporate entities. This landmark UK case is another example of parties seeking accountability for climate-related losses and an entity’s contribution to climate change. The argument is novel – can we link damages caused by extreme weather events to an entity’s historic greenhouse gas emissions? If proven, the impact would be significant to corporates, their D&Os and their insurers, on a global basis. 

As in Lliuya, the court’s decision will likely be highly dependent on the strength of expert evidence on causation, demonstrating the extent to which Shell’s emissions can be said to have contributed to the environmental changes that intensified Typhoon Rai, and on the nuances of Filipino law that the UK court will be required to determine. 

We will be closely monitoring how this claim develops and the impact it could have on the insurance industry.