Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)
Kehan Chen/Getty Images A climate change lawsuit making its way through the courts continues to prove one of New Zealand’s most historic legal cases. The case, brought by iwi leader and climate activist Mike Smith, seeks to hold several major companies, including Fonterra and Z Energy, legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions.
It has already prompted the government to reform New Zealand’s climate laws to prevent companies being sued for damages caused to the climate by their emissions. Having just been introduced under urgency to parliament, where it passed its first reading yesterday, the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill would apply to both current and future cases if enacted.
The government’s reasoning is that climate policy should be decided by elected officials and existing laws, not by the courts, to ensure “legal clarity and certainty” for businesses around their obligations. Now the dispute has taken another turn.
Smith has filed fresh proceedings in the High Court, asking for a declaration that the government’s decision to introduce the law change – and the process behind it – were unlawful. There are many interesting aspects of these cases that legal observers will be following closely.
Among them is whether New Zealand’s proposed law change is consistent with the international climate commitments it recently endorsed. A landmark case Smith alleges the companies he is suing have materially contributed to the climate crisis through their greenhouse gas emissions.
He also argues their actions have caused harm to his whenua and moana, including places of cultural, spiritual and historical significance to him and his whānau. In 2020, the companies asked the courts to strike out Smith’s case before it reached trial.
The applications worked their way through the courts before the Supreme Court heard the final appeal in 2022.
In a landmark unanimous decision in 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that while Smith’s claims – including public nuisance, negligence and a novel tort of “climate system damage” – were legally novel, they raised arguable questions that deserved to be tested at trial rather than dismissed at an early stage.
The court ordered the case be reinstated in full and proceed to the High Court, where it is currently scheduled for trial in April 2027. If the government’s amendment becomes law, however, it will bring an end to that trial before it begins – and block any future lawsuits against corporate emitters.
That is relevant not just for Smith’s case, but for New Zealand’s wider climate obligations. In 2021, Vanuatu announced at the United Nations that it would seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on states’ legal obligations in relation to climate change.
New Zealand was among the countries that supported the move. The resulting UN resolution was adopted by consensus in 2023. The International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion in 2025, unanimously finding that states have obligations to protect the climate system and that there may be legal consequences if they fail to do so.
Advisory opinions are not legally binding in the same way as judgements in contested cases. But opinions from the International Court of Justice are highly authoritative and are often cited by courts and tribunals around the world.
One important aspect of the court’s opinion concerned private actors. The court said states may be responsible if they fail to take necessary regulatory and legislative measures to limit emissions caused by private entities within their jurisdiction.
Seen in that light, removing an individual’s ability to sue companies over climate damage could be seen as weakening one possible “check and balance” on emissions caused by private actors. A gap between words and action The timing of the recent developments is also notable.
Only eight days after announcing the proposed law change in May, New Zealand voted with 140 other countries at the UN to endorse the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on climate change. New Zealand’s parliament also declared a climate emergency in 2020.
Yet domestically, the government is proposing to close off a legal pathway through which major emitters could be held accountable for climate-related harm. This does not mean every climate case against a company must succeed.
That is for the courts to decide on the evidence and the law. But preventing such cases from being heard at all raises a different concern. It risks placing New Zealand’s domestic climate policy out of step with the international climate principles it has supported.
Climate change is one of the defining challenges of this century. The science is clear that limiting global warming requires rapid and deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors this decade. The proposed amendment is therefore about more than one lawsuit.
It raises fundamental questions about whether New Zealand’s laws will match the commitments it makes internationally – and whether future generations will inherit climate policies that reflect accountability, or merely efforts to avoid it.
Justin Sobion does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/02/nz-wants-to-end-climate-lawsuits-how-does-that-sit-with-its-international-commitments/