Trixy Elle still weeps when she remembers how she and her family fought for their lives as Typhoon Rai tore across the Philippines days before Christmas four years ago. In a matter of hours, intense rain and storm surges swallowed their home on Batasan Island in Tubigon, Bohol province.
Elle, her elderly parents, brother, husband and two young children linked hands as they swam against flood waters in the dead of the night, praying to survive.
It was only the beginning of the family’s hardship. “For days, we survived on whatever we could get our hands on, like dead chickens and dead pigs. We didn’t even save a single piece of clothing,” the 34-year-old said. “I would go out to the sea and cry there so my family wouldn’t see me in pain.”
Rai, known locally as Super Typhoon Odette, was the strongest storm to hit the Philippines in 2021, killing more than 400 people, displacing nearly 3.2 million and destroying more than 1m homes. It was particularly destructive for communities in Visayas and Mindanao, wrecking hectares of farmland and disrupting health services amid a Covid-19 surge.
For years, Elle felt powerless after the cyclone took everything from her family. Now, she is demanding accountability and justice.
With 66 other typhoon survivors from island communities in the Philippines, she is suing the fossil fuel company Shell in the UK courts, demanding financial compensation for the losses and damage they experienced under Odette. It is an unprecedented lawsuit in the UK and globally, as the first civil claim to directly link polluting companies to deaths and personal injuries that have already happened in the global south. Other climate lawsuits have so far focused on future harms and risks.
The legal team representing the survivors delivered the letter before action to Shell, which is domiciled in London, on Wednesday. The letter invites the company to respond to the allegations. If no agreement is reached between the parties, the survivors will file a case before the UK high court in December.
The claim argues that Shell’s polluting business has contributed to anthropogenic climate change, which intensified the typhoon’s impact. Using Philippine laws, it asserts that the firm has violated the constitutional rights of the claimants to a healthy environment, and that it caused harm by failing to mitigate its emissions and engaging in climate disinformation and obfuscation of climate science. The case also seeks potential injunctive relief to prevent further violations to human rights.
Leaked internal documents suggest Shell knew of the extensive negative impacts of fossil fuel production and consumption at least 60 years ago but continued to expand and significantly profit from its business.
“The fact that they continued such acts despite knowing the harm they would cause, coupled with deliberately misinforming the public, can be considered acting contrary to certain provisions of Filipino law,” said Greg Lascelles, a partner at Hausfeld who leads the legal team.
A Shell spokesperson denied allegations that the company had earlier knowledge of climate change. “The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true. The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has been part of public discussion and scientific research for decades,” they said in a statement.
Filipino claimants in the Odette lawsuit, however, argue that despite Shell knowing the impact of increased emissions, it still expanded its fossil fuel operations, hid from the public what it knew and actively undermined scientific consensus on the causes and effects of the climate crisis through its direct involvement in the fossil fuel industry and lobbying.
While climate lawsuits have exponentially increased globally over recent years, the Odette case stands out as a claim that draws from robust attribution science. An independent study by scientists from Imperial College London, the University of Sheffield and the Grantham Institute concluded that anthropogenic climate change has more than doubled the likelihood of extreme weather events like Odette.
The case is also supported by a pioneering report from the Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights, which conducted the world’s first investigation on the responsibility of 47 of the world’s largest oil, gas and cement producers, including Shell, for human rights violations related to the climate crisis. In 2022, the commission concluded that polluters had a moral and legal obligation to address climate harms.
Climate litigation against companies has been on the rise globally, with lawsuits targeting corporations or their directors and officers. Eleven “polluter pays” cases were filed in 2024, according to researchers from the London School of Economics. This year the verdict in a case against the German energy company RWE found that polluters could be held liable for their carbon emissions. But so far no company has had to pay for losses and damages linked to the climate crisis.
As climate harms mount, courts are becoming the new battlefield for climate survivors seeking accountability, said Tessa Khan, a climate change lawyer and executive director of Uplift, which supports the claimants.
“Courts are always the last venue of resort. It takes incredible courage and tenacity to pursue this legal option,” she said. “But it will remain so as long as communities are finding that companies and governments in the global north are not fulfilling their responsibility and moral duties.”
In the Philippines, Elle and her family are still struggling to get back on their feet. They have stayed on Batasan, which has become known as a sinking island. During high tide on sunny days, rising seawater enters homes and schools. Families have adapted by building their houses a few feet higher than the ground. Everyone, including Elle, is adamant they will stay.
“My motivation is my children’s future. I don’t want my children to suffer again,” Elle said. The harrowing experience of surviving Odette lingers on with her two sons, now 13 and 17, who hide in fear every time they hear rumbling thunder.
For her, their case is a hopeful light after a long period of darkness. “Maybe this fight is my purpose in my second life after surviving Odette,” she said. “With this case, I hope that Shell and other companies now see us, the people who are suffering because of their business. We are now fighting back.”
