The Original Litigation has seemingly paved the way for a further claim from Milieudefensie which announced in May its intention to initiate a new lawsuit against Shell, seeking to impose a ban on all new oil and gas extraction by Shell (the "Second Shell Litigation"). If pursued (and as yet only an initial "notice of liability" has been sent) this will be the first time litigation has been used to try and prevent a company from investing in all new oil and gas fields. This claim appears to be, at least in part, a response to guidance from the Dutch Court of Appeal in the Original Litigation which indicated Shell’s planned investments in new oil and gas fields may be at odds with its duty to reduce emissions.

The progress of these disputes merit close attention. If either claim is successful, it could further embolden campaign groups across the UK and Europe to emulate claims in their own jurisdictions with the potential to cause significant disruption to corporates (and investors) in the oil and gas market.

Update on the original litigation

Dutch Court of Appeal decision – recap

As we reported in our article last November, the Dutch Court of Appeal overturned the Hague District Court's landmark decision which had ordered Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels and to zero by 2050. This was the first time a national court had ordered a private company to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. The Court of Appeal's retreat was, however, not a complete victory for Shell, as the decision confirmed that private companies are obliged to take steps to combat climate change and can be compelled to take measures that go beyond current legislation with greater obligations to do so for companies that have particularly contributed to the climate crisis, such as, oil and gas companies. The Court rejected out of hand Shell's argument that it is for the legislator and not the civil courts to make decisions requiring companies to reduce their emissions.

Appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court

Milieudefensie confirmed in February its intention to appeal the Dutch Court of Appeal's decision. While, a copy of the grounds of appeal is not publicly available, Milieudefensie has published an article (see here) explaining its position. Significantly it argues that a specific, measurable reduction percentage for Shell's emissions needs to be set by the courts to guarantee effective protection of human rights and that the judge had a duty to set a minimum reduction percentage. Milieudefensie also argue that the Dutch Court of Appeal's reliance on there being an insufficient scientific consensus on the appropriate CO2 reduction target as a justification for not imposing a specific order on Shell was wrong, arguing a broader standard should have been applied which considered (for example) the doctrine of hazardous negligence, international climate agreements and legal principles.

A final ruling from the Supreme Court is likely in 2026.

If Milieudefensie is successful, it could pave the way for additional litigation against private companies in a bid to press courts to impose specific emissions-reduction orders where companies are not demonstrating that they are taking active steps to reduce emissions themselves. 

As we reported here in a case brought by a Peruvian farmer against RWE, there is some encouragement from the courts for claimants seeking to impose responsibility on larger emitters and the decision of the German courts in the RWE litigation may well be influential in the final appeal in the Original Litigation – time will tell.

The second Shell litigation

Hot on the heels of its decision to appeal, in May Milieudefensie sent a "notice of liability"(see here) to Shell setting out its intention to bring new legal proceedings against Shell for an order preventing the company extracting from new oil and gas fields[1]. Milieudefensie's letter alleges Shell's continued investment in new oil and gas fields is in breach of its legal duty of care under Dutch law. The notice also confirms Milieudefensie's intention to seek an order imposing specific targets on Shell to reduce its emissions between 2030 and 2050 in line with the Paris Agreement (the Original Litigation will only take into account the period up to 2030).

Shell has four weeks to formally respond to Milieudefensie "notice of liability". If the litigation progresses and is successful, it would mark the first time a court has ordered a company to stop all new fossil fuel production projects.

The latest decision in the Original Litigation prompted Milieudefensie to pursue this new line of attack with Milieudefensie making use of the court's comment that it was “reasonable to expect oil and gas companies to take into account the negative consequences of a further expansion of the supply of fossil fuels" when making new investment decisions, and noting "Shell’s planned investments in new oil and gas fields may be at odds with this.” 

Milieudefensie's notice relies on scientific research which has concluded that net-zero goals will not be achieved without stopping investments in new oil and gas fields. Milieudefensie alleges Shell intends to grow its fossil fuel production and sales until well after 2030. According to Milieudefensie, Shell currently has 700 new oil and gas projects which they could develop at any time.^₁ The "notice of liability" argues Shell's plans for new investments in oil and gas are not compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and so, are in conflict with the substantive findings of the Dutch Court of Appeal in the Original Litigation.

If pursued, the Second Shell Litigation will mark a strategic shift in climate change litigation, taking an overarching approach by challenging new oil and gas development comprehensively rather than by focussing on specific projects (such as the action to stop the proposed Rosebank development in the UK²). If Milieudefensie were to succeed, this could lead to a forced change on the core business models of oil and gas companies which could in turn result in wider impacts on new investments in fossil fuels and financial institutions/pensions funds that typically invest in oil and gas companies. In fact, Milieudefensie has already taken steps in this direction with its action against ING in the Netherlands (see here) seeking (in essence) a halving of its carbon emissions by 2030 and demanding ING stops providing finance to companies embarking on new oil and gas projects.

Conclusion

Businesses operating in industries which are linked to emissions will need to continue to closely monitor these and other climate cases; their impact could be significant. If the Dutch Supreme Court reinstates the first-instance decision in the Original Litigation and imposes specific reduction targets on Shell it will likely lead to increased climate-change litigation globally. Companies should ensure they have measures in place to accurately track their Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with internal targets in place to reduce these emissions along with detailed records of progress made so far.

Milieudefensie's decision to launch the Second Shell litigation on the back of comments made by the Dutch Court of Appeal in the Original Litigation highlights that it is not sufficient to only pay attention to the binding decisions of courts. A watchful eye should be kept for any indications or guidance given by courts on climate related topics: regular horizon scanning will assist companies to understand the potential impact of expanding climate related decisions on their operations.

[1] https://en.milieudefensie.nl/news/why-we-are-launching-a-new-climate-case-against-shell

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/30/rosebank-oilfield-jackdaw-decision-unlawful-edinburgh-court