• LittleLaw
  • Posts
  • 🌪️ Why Shell is being sued over a typhoon

🌪️ Why Shell is being sued over a typhoon

Author

Idin Sabahipour
December 17, 2025

Table of Contents

If you take just one thing from this email...

A company can be sued in the UK for climate harm caused abroad.

That risk does not stop at reputation — when emissions are linked to legal claims, they become a financial issue, not just a PR problem.

EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

Could the UK get a white Christmas?

The Met Office is dangling a small (roasted) carrot in front of us.

The answer is... maybe 🙃

According to their website, “Christmas Day itself is looking drier and perhaps a little colder compared to the first half of December”.

So, no promises but it might be a white Christmas after all.

Also, if you want the technical (and quite surprising) definition of a “white Christmas”, the Met Office has a video for that 👇️ 

– Idin

P.S. A few people asked me for a breakdown of the Netflix-Warner Bros deal. So, here it is (plus how to use it in your applications).

🌪️ Why Shell is being sued over a typhoon

What’s going on here?

Shell, the global energy company, is being sued in the UK by more than 100 people from the Philippines.

Their homes and communities were badly damaged by Typhoon Rai in December 2021 (a devastating storm that killed over 400 people and destroyed 1.4 million homes).

The claimants say it was not just a natural disaster. They argue that climate change made the storm more likely and more severe — and that Shell’s greenhouse gas emissions played a role in that climate change.

This is a civil damages claim seeking financial compensation for the destroyed homes, lost income, psychological trauma and bereavement.

Where is this case taking place?

The case is actually being heard in the UK, because Shell plc is headquartered here.

Under English law, a company that’s based in England can be sued in the English courts, even if the harm occurred abroad. That means the High Court in London has jurisdiction (in other words, the legal power to hear the case).

But it’ll be Philippine law that’s applied to the case.

Why does Philippine law apply instead of UK law?

Where a case is heard is not the same as which law applies.

The damage happened in the Philippines. For negligence-style claims, the law of the place where the harm occurred usually applies. That means Philippine law applies, not English law.

So the High Court will hear the case in London and follow English court procedure. But it will apply Philippine law to decide liability (with help from expert evidence on that law).

For Shell, this makes things harder. Applying foreign law means the case is more complex, more uncertain and more expensive to defend.

🤔 “Jurisdiction” vs “Applicable law”

Jurisdiction means which court is allowed to hear the case.

Applicable law is which country’s legal rules decide who is liable and what remedies are available.

As shown in this case, they’re not always the same.

What are the claimants accusing Shell of?

The claimants argue that Typhoon Rai was made more likely and more severe by climate change.

Human-driven climate change did increase the intensity of the storm — and Shell is one of the world’s largest historic producers of oil and gas. The claimants’ letter states that Shell is responsible for 2% of historical global greenhouse gas emissions.

They also argue that, since the 1960s, Shell knew that emissions would drive climate harm, but continued to expand fossil fuel production anyway.

The claim also relies on the Philippine constitution, which includes the right for citizens to have a “balanced and healthful ecology”.

That right allows individuals to bring claims directly against a private company (like Shell) for environmental harm.

In many countries, this type of claim would not be possible — the same conduct can carry very different risks depending on the legal system involved.

How likely is this claim to succeed?

It will be difficult for the claimants to win.

The biggest challenge is causation. The claimants must show that Shell’s emissions made a material contribution to the harm caused by Typhoon Rai. Shell did not cause the storm on its own, and climate change involves emissions from many companies over many decades.

Shell denies that its activities can be linked to this specific typhoon and rejects claims that it had any unique knowledge of climate risks.

That said, the case is not completely unrealistic. Climate attribution science has improved significantly. So experts can now estimate how much climate change increased the likelihood and intensity of specific extreme weather events. So, courts are becoming more willing to engage with this evidence, even if outcomes remain mixed.

From a business point of view for Shell, the uncertainty matters more than the outcome. Even if the claim fails, the cost, duration and risk of this type of litigation can still influence the way businesses behave.

Why does this really matter commercially for Shell?

Until now, many companies treated emissions primarily as a reputational risk. This claim reframes them as a direct financial risk.

If claims like this succeed, companies face two real costs:

  1. the cost of defending complex climate litigation, and

  2. the risk of paying damages for climate-related harm.

That changes how companies think. Emissions stop being an additional concern and become a direct financial issue, like the risk of product liability claims or major regulatory fines.

How can you use this in your applications?

This case connects climate change, legal risk and business strategy in a concrete way (it’s especially relevant if you’re interested in ESG).

Insight

Why it matters

How to use it in your applications

For high-emitting companies, financial incentives typically outweigh environmental considerations

Companies like Shell are under constant pressure from shareholders to deliver profits. When fossil fuels are highly profitable, it becomes harder for them to prioritise long-term green investment, even if they accept the climate risks.

In case studies or interviews, show you understand that corporate climate decisions are usually influenced by shareholder pressure to maximise returns. That’s why companies aren’t always incentivised to do the “right thing” with their green initiatives.

Climate change becomes a business issue once it creates legal and financial risk

Litigation (like this) attaches real costs to emissions, including paying your lawyers to defend a claim and paying damages. That shifts climate harm from a reputational concern to a clear financial risk.

You can discuss this case to explain how legal liability related to climate risk can impact a company financially. So, it can force companies to factor climate risk more seriously in their decisions.

Global companies can be sued where they are headquartered, even if harm occurs elsewhere

Legal risk can follow the parent company’s base. This expands risk exposure for multinational businesses that operate globally.

Use this case to demonstrate your understanding of how jurisdiction works in practice for global clients — if a harm happens abroad, the claim can follow you back to your home country.

“Jurisdiction” and “applicable law” can point to different countries

When a UK court has to apply foreign law, it increases uncertainty, cost and complexity for the defendants.

Show you understand how cross-border litigation actually operates. This is particularly relevant if you’re interested in contentious work (like litigation or arbitration).

Constitutional environmental rights can significantly increase legal exposure

Some legal systems give individuals enforceable environmental rights that do not exist elsewhere.

Explain how local constitutional rights can increase risk for global businesses — this is a clear reason why firms need jurisdiction-specific advice.

IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

  • ⚖️ Winston & Strawn and Taylor Wessing are merging. The new firm will be called Winston Taylor, and it’s expected to launch in May 2026. The deal creates a 1,400-lawyer firm across 20 offices, with a strong US and UK base. It helps Winston deepen its London presence and pushes Taylor Wessing faster into the US, especially in tech, life sciences and IP.

  • 🤖 Shoosmiths is paying staff an extra £1 million in bonuses after hitting its target for using Microsoft Copilot. The firm set a goal of 1 million AI prompts across the business and reached it four months ahead of schedule. That £1 million sits on top of an existing £3.5 million bonus pool. Shoosmiths was the first big law firm to link bonuses directly to AI use, and it now wants to make sure people keep using the tools.

  • 🍗 Morrisons has lost a long-running tax fight with HMRC over rotisserie chickens. The argument was whether rotisserie chickens counted as hot food. The High Court ruled they do, meaning they should be subject to 20% VAT, leaving the supermarket with a £17 million bill due. The court said the chickens stayed hot for hours, were sold in foil-lined bags marked “caution: hot”, and were taken off sale while still warm. Morrisons argued most customers eat them cold or later, and that higher prices would hit lower-income shoppers. But the judge was not convinced.

AROUND THE WEB 🌐

STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

  • 💻️ Free application advice: Check out my YouTube channel for actionable tips and an insight into the lifestyle of a commercial lawyer in London.

  • 📁 Law firm application bank: A growing library of real, verified successful applications for training contracts and vacation schemes. Helpful if you want to learn from others who answered the same questions you’re stuck on.

  • 📝 Write winning law firm applications: A practical course to help you write clearer applications, faster. Avoid common mistakes, learn how to structure answers properly, and get lifetime access to future updates. Try it for 14 days, risk free.

How did you find today's newsletter?

Login or Subscribe to participate in polls.