Shell faces a second Dutch climate lawsuit as Milieudefensie returns to court seeking a binding emissions reduction order
Shell has been hit with a second climate lawsuit in the Netherlands, brought by Milieudefensie (the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth), which is seeking a court order compelling the energy major to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. A successful outcome for the NGO would mark the first time a company has been compelled by a court to reduce its emissions pursuant to judicially imposed obligations — a landmark in corporate climate liability law. This follows the original 2021 Milieudefensie v Shell judgment in the Hague District Court, in which Shell was ordered to cut its CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. That ruling was partially overturned on appeal in 2024, with the Court of Appeal in The Hague finding that the original order's specific percentage target was not justified on the evidence, while affirming that companies can in principle owe duties to reduce emissions under Dutch tort law. The new lawsuit goes further, demanding Shell stop investing in new oil and gas projects alongside binding interim emissions targets between 2030 and 2050 — a strategic shift that addresses the appellate court's earlier evidentiary concerns about the specific 45% target. The case is being watched globally as a test of whether Dutch and European courts will impose binding, quantified emissions reduction obligations on major listed companies — a question with direct implications for English law governed corporate transactions involving energy sector clients and their long-term capital expenditure planning.
Why this matters
The second Milieudefensie action against Shell is a high-visibility climate litigation development with direct relevance to City firms advising energy clients, ESG (environmental, social and governance) investors, and M&A deal teams structuring transactions with significant fossil fuel assets. If Dutch courts impose binding emissions targets, the precedent will be cited in UK litigation and may influence the interpretation of directors' duties in English law — particularly following the Companies Act 2006 and FCA ESG disclosure rules that require listed companies to report on climate-related financial risks. The 'why now' trigger is Milieudefensie's opportunity to advance a revised claim after the 2024 partial appeal victory, with the NGO believed to have refined its scientific evidence to address the specific gaps the Court of Appeal identified. For transactional practices, the case accelerates the trend of buyers and sellers requiring detailed climate liability assessments as part of M&A due diligence for energy-sector deals.
On the Ground
A trainee supporting an energy client monitoring this litigation would prepare treaty analysis notes on the interaction between Dutch climate law and international climate agreements, draft choice-of-law summaries for clients with both Dutch and English law-governed asset agreements, and assist with sanctions screening memos for any co-defendant entities named in the proceedings.
Interview prep
Soundbite
If Dutch courts impose quantified emissions targets on Shell, every major energy M&A deal will need a climate liability schedule in due diligence.
Question you might get
“How might a Dutch court judgment imposing binding emissions reduction targets on Shell affect an English-law governed acquisition of Shell's upstream oil and gas assets, and how would you advise a buyer on managing that climate liability risk?”
Full answer
Milieudefensie has filed a second climate lawsuit against Shell in the Netherlands, seeking a binding court order requiring the company to reduce its emissions in line with the Paris Agreement — a case that could set the first precedent for judicially imposed corporate emissions targets. The commercial significance for City lawyers is twofold: it advances the principle that large corporates owe legally enforceable climate duties, and it places that principle in a jurisdiction — the Netherlands — whose courts have already shown willingness to impose such duties in principle. For transactional practices, this accelerates the integration of climate liability risk into M&A due diligence, particularly for energy-sector deals where a buyer acquiring Shell assets could inherit litigation exposure. The broader trend is one of climate litigation shifting from constitutional challenges to corporate liability, a trajectory that UK firms advising FTSE-listed energy clients need to track closely.
My notes
saved