The shell case builds on a landmark ruling [1] which has gone through Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. In my opinion, the odds of this ruling being revoked is highly unlikely, since the argumentation of the ruling follows [1] hence there is jurisprudence in place.
[1] https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/the-urgenda-decision-the-l...
Note many followed in Roger's wake, take for instance yet another recent landmark ruling by the the German constitutional court declared the current climate protection measures insufficient [3]
The organization that took on Shell is Milieudefensie [4] ( hey, why not pay tribute and chip in )
[1] https://www.revolutionjustified.org/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-8bYFJsiA
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/06/germany-to-bri...
This is how appeals work. They are binding until a higher court stays or overturns the original decision.
> the odds of this ruling being revoked is highly unlikely, since the argumentation of the ruling follows...hence there is jurisprudence in place
This is how appeals work. Rulings create jurisprudence. A ruling is a pre-requisite to an appeal.
The appeal may be solid or flimsy. But nothing said here points either way. That said, two courts pointing one way may make it harder for the ECHR (which I believe is the next step, though I may be mistaken in this) to overturn.