The plaintiff, Michael John Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu), is the climate change spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs Forum and claims a customary interest in lands and resources in Northland that are at risk due to climate change. Mr Smith’s claim is against six New Zealand corporate defendants: Fonterra Co-operative Group, Genesis Energy Limited, Dairy Holdings Ltd, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy, and BT Mining Ltd. 

Mr Smith’s claim raised three causes of action: negligence, public nuisance and a novel tort claim. Public nuisance is alleged on the basis that the ongoing, dangerous, anthropogenic interference with the climate system, which has been caused or contributed to by the defendants, has or will substantially, materially and unreasonably interfere with a range of public rights. The “proposed new tort involv[es] a duty, cognisable at law, to cease materially contributing to: damage to the climate system; dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; and the adverse effects of climate change.” Mr Smith additionally pleads that tikanga Māori should inform the development of the common law with regard to the causes of action. Mr Smith is not seeking damages but rather injunctive and declaratory relief.

In 2020, the High Court struck out the claims in public nuisance and negligence as not reasonably arguable, holding that imposing a duty of care would be "inconsistent with Parliament's regulation of emissions" under the CCRA. The Court declined to strike out the proposed new tort. In 2021, the Court of Appeal struck out all three causes of action, holding that imposing a duty of care would cut across the existing legislative framework and that the proposed new tort was a "bare assertion" lacking scope.  The Court held that "climate change simply cannot be appropriately or adequately addressed by common law tort claims" and that a national regulatory response was required instead.   

In February 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, holding that the threshold for strike-out was not met and “Mr Smith now gets his day in court”. The Supreme Court held that the CCRA did not displace or modify the application of tort law in the context of climate change for several reasons, including because the CCRA “neither authorises nor immunises GHG emissions” but merely “facilitates state-introduced market signals via a trading system”. Instead, the CCRA was designed to complement existing planning legislation, which expressly preserves common-law action.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, a series of interlocutory applications have been heard. In April 2025, the High Court declined two applications. The first, by the first to third defendants, sought a determination that it was properly arguable that overseas commercial, government and non-profit emitters could be joined as third parties. The Court held that joinder would introduce complexity, expense, and delay, inconsistent with the objectives of the High Court Rules and with access to justice, and would very likely derail the April 2027 trial ([49]). 

The second, by the first to fifth defendants, sought orders declaring the proceeding a "universal representative proceeding" against all New Zealand commercial enterprises that emit significantly more than an ordinary citizen. The Court held that the Supreme Court's judgment clearly proceeded on the basis that Mr Smith could sue the named defendants alone; the application effectively sought to relitigate that issue, and a representative order would not enhance access to justice ([60]–[61], [74]).

In June 2025, the Court declined BT Mining's application to have two questions determined before trial, whether it could be liable despite having carried out no relevant GHG-emitting activity of its own, and whether liability could arise where the emitting activity occurs overseas, finding no clear demarcation between the claims against BT Mining and the other defendants ([13]). It also declined BT Mining's application for security for costs of $150,000 ([21]), and Mr Smith's application to split the trial into liability and relief phases, though the latter may be revisited ([45]). The Court also declined Mr Smith's applications for protective costs orders, including for any 'pure' third-party funder, finding that absent an identified funder the Court could not assess whether it was “pure”, and Mr Smith personally did not meet the threshold of necessity, having made clear he would continue regardless ([76]). The decision was without prejudice to a further application in respect of an identified funder ([77]).

On May 12, 2026, the New Zealand Government announced that it would amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to preclude tort liability for climate change-related harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions in both current and future proceedings, including this case.

On July 10, 2026, the High Court released an interim decision releasing Mr Smith from his implied discovery undertaking and granting him leave to use certain documents discovered by the first and fifth defendants (Fonterra and Z Energy) for collateral purposes. On July 11, 2026, Fonterra and Z Energy obtained a stay from the Court of Appeal, conditional on their seeking leave to appeal in the High Court. Subsequently, on July 24, 2026, the High Court granted leave on the papers, in the interests of justice given the unique circumstances of the litigation and its significance to all parties.

The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Act 2026 came into force on August 25, 2026.

Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited

<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>

Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited - appeal

Filed

The plaintiff, Michael John Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu), is the climate change spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs Forum and claims a customary interest in lands and resources in Northland that are at risk due to climate change. Mr Smith’s claim is against six New Zealand corporate defendants: Fonterra Co-operative Group, Genesis Energy Limited, Dairy Holdings Ltd, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy, and BT Mining Ltd. 

Mr Smith’s claim raised three causes of action: negligence, public nuisance and a novel tort claim. Public nuisance is alleged on the basis that the ongoing, dangerous, anthropogenic interference with the climate system, which has been caused or contributed to by the defendants, has or will substantially, materially and unreasonably interfere with a range of public rights. The “proposed new tort involv[es] a duty, cognisable at law, to cease materially contributing to: damage to the climate system; dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; and the adverse effects of climate change.” Mr Smith additionally pleads that tikanga Māori should inform the development of the common law with regard to the causes of action. Mr Smith is not seeking damages but rather injunctive and declaratory relief.

In 2020, the High Court struck out the claims in public nuisance and negligence as not reasonably arguable, holding that imposing a duty of care would be "inconsistent with Parliament's regulation of emissions" under the CCRA. The Court declined to strike out the proposed new tort. In 2021, the Court of Appeal struck out all three causes of action, holding that imposing a duty of care would cut across the existing legislative framework and that the proposed new tort was a "bare assertion" lacking scope.  The Court held that "climate change simply cannot be appropriately or adequately addressed by common law tort claims" and that a national regulatory response was required instead.   

In February 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, holding that the threshold for strike-out was not met and “Mr Smith now gets his day in court”. The Supreme Court held that the CCRA did not displace or modify the application of tort law in the context of climate change for several reasons, including because the CCRA “neither authorises nor immunises GHG emissions” but merely “facilitates state-introduced market signals via a trading system”. Instead, the CCRA was designed to complement existing planning legislation, which expressly preserves common-law action.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, a series of interlocutory applications have been heard. In April 2025, the High Court declined two applications. The first, by the first to third defendants, sought a determination that it was properly arguable that overseas commercial, government and non-profit emitters could be joined as third parties. The Court held that joinder would introduce complexity, expense, and delay, inconsistent with the objectives of the High Court Rules and with access to justice, and would very likely derail the April 2027 trial ([49]). 

The second, by the first to fifth defendants, sought orders declaring the proceeding a "universal representative proceeding" against all New Zealand commercial enterprises that emit significantly more than an ordinary citizen. The Court held that the Supreme Court's judgment clearly proceeded on the basis that Mr Smith could sue the named defendants alone; the application effectively sought to relitigate that issue, and a representative order would not enhance access to justice ([60]–[61], [74]).

In June 2025, the Court declined BT Mining's application to have two questions determined before trial, whether it could be liable despite having carried out no relevant GHG-emitting activity of its own, and whether liability could arise where the emitting activity occurs overseas, finding no clear demarcation between the claims against BT Mining and the other defendants ([13]). It also declined BT Mining's application for security for costs of $150,000 ([21]), and Mr Smith's application to split the trial into liability and relief phases, though the latter may be revisited ([45]). The Court also declined Mr Smith's applications for protective costs orders, including for any 'pure' third-party funder, finding that absent an identified funder the Court could not assess whether it was “pure”, and Mr Smith personally did not meet the threshold of necessity, having made clear he would continue regardless ([76]). The decision was without prejudice to a further application in respect of an identified funder ([77]).

On May 12, 2026, the New Zealand Government announced that it would amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to preclude tort liability for climate change-related harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions in both current and future proceedings, including this case.

On July 10, 2026, the High Court released an interim decision releasing Mr Smith from his implied discovery undertaking and granting him leave to use certain documents discovered by the first and fifth defendants (Fonterra and Z Energy) for collateral purposes. On July 11, 2026, Fonterra and Z Energy obtained a stay from the Court of Appeal, conditional on their seeking leave to appeal in the High Court. Subsequently, on July 24, 2026, the High Court granted leave on the papers, in the interests of justice given the unique circumstances of the litigation and its significance to all parties.

The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Act 2026 came into force on August 25, 2026. 

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

Tradable permits are market-based tools that grant permission for specific activities, frequently used to regulate emissions. These permits can be issued within a trading system to manage environmental impacts.

The processes through which enterprises can identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their actual and potential adverse impacts. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable precautions should be taken to avoid causing harm to people, the environment, or society. It also involves identifying and mitigating risks before they occur.

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

Actions or measures to adapt terrestrial systems to climate change.

Risks to the ecosystem health of the marine environment, including ocean warming, ocean acidification, and ocean deoxygenation, harming biodiversity, species health, ecosystem services, and coastal community livelihoods.

Extreme weather refers to events where a weather variable exceeds (or falls below) a threshold. Meaning it is significantly different from the average or usual weather pattern.

Terrestrial means "of the earth" and relates to the risks to ecological system that includes all living organisms and their interactions within land-based environments, such as forests, grasslands, and deserts.

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.

Coal is a combustible sedimentary rock formed from carbonised plant matter, rich in carbon and hydrocarbons, and occurring in several main types including hard coal and brown coal.

woman and genders outside of the gender binary

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

This sector involves managing waste treatment, sanitation, pollution control and environmental cleanup.

This sector involves activities that impart knowledge and skills to individuals, including formal schooling, vocational training and educational support.

Activities of businesses and institutions that provide financial services and products to individuals and organisations.

Any substance with chemical properties that can cause physical harm to people or damage the environment, including ammonia, carbon monoxide, phosphine, chlorine, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, pesticides, dioxins, microplastics, benzene, asbestos, aflatoxins, fluoride, methanol, and toxins from marine sources.

Climate change impacts our society by disrupting the natural, economic and social systems we depend on. Physical hazards and underlying vulnerabilities can lead to increased resource competition for food and water, which can heighten the risk of conflict.

Slow onset events evolve gradually from incremental changes over many years or from increased frequency or intensity of recurring events. As defined in the Cancun Adaptation Framework (2010), slow onset events include risks and impacts from rising temperatures, desertification, biodiversity loss, land and forest degradation, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and salinization.

Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited - appeal

Target

Policy instrument

Risk

Impacted group

Fossil fuel

Greenhouse gas

Economic sector

Adaptation/resilience