In 2021, Climate Clinic Aotearoa Inc (previously Students for Climate Solutions) brought a case against New Zealand’s Minister of Energy, challenging the lawfulness of decisions made under s 25 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA) to grant petroleum exploration permits. 

Climate Clinic Aotearoa argued that the phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” in the purpose section of the CMA required the Minister to take into account, as a mandatory relevant consideration, the climate change implications of the decisions. It argued further that the s 25 decision-maker had not engaged with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a meaningful way, contrary to s 4 of the CMA. 

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge. It interpreted the phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” as Parliament’s indication that it wished prospecting, exploration and mining to take place because those activities are for the benefit of New Zealand. Therefore, climate change considerations (including those under s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002) were irrelevant considerations to the s 25 decisions to grant the petroleum exploration permits. While the Judge accepted that Treaty considerations were relevant by virtue of s 4, he was satisfied that the decision maker had adequately considered them. 

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed Climate Clinic Aotearoa’s appeal. The Court of Appeal was unanimous that climate change was not a mandatory relevant consideration; however, it was divided on whether it should be taken into account by the decision-maker as a permissible consideration. Mallon J considered that aspects of climate change (being those that are listed in s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002) were permissible considerations. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the High Court that the decision maker adequately considered the principles of the Treaty. 

Climate Clinic Aotearoa appealed to the Supreme Court. On February 24, 2025, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. Without limiting the scope of the appeal, the Court has directed counsel to address whether the climate change considerations set out in section 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 are mandatory, permissive, or irrelevant considerations when granting a petroleum exploration permit.

On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court released its judgment on the appeal. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal on the facts. However, the Supreme Court made critical findings of law agreeing with the majority of Climate Clinic Aotearoa’s legal arguments. 

First, the Court found that s 24 rather than s 25 was the critical decision - being the section where the decision to offer blocks for tender, rather than s 25 being the decision to grant permits following a tendering process. This is because the s 24 decision to offer an area for tender is an in-principle decision that exploration may be permitted in the area. 

In terms of s 1A(1) of the CMA, the appellant argued that the words “for the benefit of New Zealand” indicate that the CMA’s purpose is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining only where those activities benefit New Zealand. The respondents submitted that the wording instead conveyed that the purpose of the CMA is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining because those activities benefit New Zealand. The Court agreed with the appellant.

The Supreme Court held that climate change was a mandatory relevant consideration under s 24 decision given the context of climate change being a matter of pressing concern for New Zealand, the Crown’s binding international obligations in connection with reducing emissions, and the role of petroleum extraction and consumption in climate change. When applying this to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the decision-maker adequately considered climate change, having received detailed briefings that addressed it. 

Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa | The New Zealand Māori Law Society Inc was given leave to intervene and to make submissions on the relevance of the Treaty to the appeal. The Court agreed with the appellant and Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa that the Crown’s duty of active protection of Māori Treaty interests requires the Crown to actively engage with the nature of the interests affected by Crown action, and with the nature of that Crown action. However, due to the facts of the case and the way the appeal was pleaded, the Court was unable to decide the appeal on this point, whilst noting that it considered such an error unlikely.

Climate Clinic Aotearoa v Minister of Energy

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

Climate Clinic Aotearoa v Minister of Energy - press release

Filed

In 2021, Climate Clinic Aotearoa Inc (previously Students for Climate Solutions) brought a case against New Zealand’s Minister of Energy, challenging the lawfulness of decisions made under s 25 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA) to grant petroleum exploration permits. 

Climate Clinic Aotearoa argued that the phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” in the purpose section of the CMA required the Minister to take into account, as a mandatory relevant consideration, the climate change implications of the decisions. It argued further that the s 25 decision-maker had not engaged with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a meaningful way, contrary to s 4 of the CMA. 

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge. It interpreted the phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” as Parliament’s indication that it wished prospecting, exploration and mining to take place because those activities are for the benefit of New Zealand. Therefore, climate change considerations (including those under s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002) were irrelevant considerations to the s 25 decisions to grant the petroleum exploration permits. While the Judge accepted that Treaty considerations were relevant by virtue of s 4, he was satisfied that the decision maker had adequately considered them. 

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed Climate Clinic Aotearoa’s appeal. The Court of Appeal was unanimous that climate change was not a mandatory relevant consideration; however, it was divided on whether it should be taken into account by the decision-maker as a permissible consideration. Mallon J considered that aspects of climate change (being those that are listed in s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002) were permissible considerations. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the High Court that the decision maker adequately considered the principles of the Treaty. 

Climate Clinic Aotearoa appealed to the Supreme Court. On February 24, 2025, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. Without limiting the scope of the appeal, the Court has directed counsel to address whether the climate change considerations set out in section 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 are mandatory, permissive, or irrelevant considerations when granting a petroleum exploration permit.

On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court released its judgment on the appeal. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal on the facts. However, the Supreme Court made critical findings of law agreeing with the majority of Climate Clinic Aotearoa’s legal arguments. 

First, the Court found that s 24 rather than s 25 was the critical decision - being the section where the decision to offer blocks for tender, rather than s 25 being the decision to grant permits following a tendering process. This is because the s 24 decision to offer an area for tender is an in-principle decision that exploration may be permitted in the area. 

In terms of s 1A(1) of the CMA, the appellant argued that the words “for the benefit of New Zealand” indicate that the CMA’s purpose is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining only where those activities benefit New Zealand. The respondents submitted that the wording instead conveyed that the purpose of the CMA is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining because those activities benefit New Zealand. The Court agreed with the appellant.

The Supreme Court held that climate change was a mandatory relevant consideration under s 24 decision given the context of climate change being a matter of pressing concern for New Zealand, the Crown’s binding international obligations in connection with reducing emissions, and the role of petroleum extraction and consumption in climate change. When applying this to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the decision-maker adequately considered climate change, having received detailed briefings that addressed it. 

Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa | The New Zealand Māori Law Society Inc was given leave to intervene and to make submissions on the relevance of the Treaty to the appeal. The Court agreed with the appellant and Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa that the Crown’s duty of active protection of Māori Treaty interests requires the Crown to actively engage with the nature of the interests affected by Crown action, and with the nature of that Crown action. However, due to the facts of the case and the way the appeal was pleaded, the Court was unable to decide the appeal on this point, whilst noting that it considered such an error unlikely. 

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Justice is the ethical and political framework that addresses fairness, including issues of responsibility, rights, and structural inequity.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

A ban is a legal action that prevents the sale or supply of a product or service, or that recalls a product from the market. Examples are bans on SF6, greenwashing, fossil fuel advertisement or single-use plastics.

A target to reduce the prevalence of a greenhouse gas over a specific time frame

A commitment to balance GHG emissions with removal by a certain point in time, effectively reducing the net emissions to zero

Either money or something of monetary value is transferred between two or more organisations, people or countries.

Oil is a combustible liquid fossil fuel composed mainly of hydrocarbons, occurring as crude oil and refined into petroleum products such as petrol, diesel and kerosene.

Fossil gas, commonly known as natural gas, is a fossil fuel consisting chiefly of methane with smaller amounts of other hydrocarbons and trace gases, found in underground deposits.

People with different national or cultural traditions from the dominant population

Social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced

Activities of industries that extract natural resources, such as mining, oil, and gas, for commercial use.

Climate Clinic Aotearoa v Minister of Energy - press release

Target

Policy instrument

Impacted group

Just transition

Fossil fuel

Greenhouse gas

Economic sector

Finance