Southland

Marlborough

Bay of Plenty

Tasman

Manawatū-Whanganui

Canterbury

Taranaki

Nelson

Chatham Islands Territory

Greater Wellington

West Coast

Northland

Gisborne

Waikato

Otago

Hawke's Bay

Auckland

New Zealand

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

In June 2026, Mr. Smith filed a proceeding in the High Court, challenging Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s announcement that he will introduce legislation to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent tort-based climate litigation, including with retrospective effect. 

In the announcement, the Minister expressed that "[o]ngoing litigation in the High Court, where an applicant has brought civil claims against six major businesses for their greenhouse gas emissions, is creating uncertainty in business confidence and investment that the Government must address." He further stated that "the Government will amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent findings of liability for tort for climate change damage or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions in both current and future proceedings before the courts." This is in reference to Mr Smith's existing case, Smith v Fonterra, against six of New Zealand's largest corporate emitters. 

The claim challenges both the Minister’s announcement and the Cabinet process and decision behind it. Mr Smith alleges that the decision was unlawful on several grounds, including that: 
(i) The decision was reached with input from the defendants in Mr Smith’s existing case, Smith v Fonterra, in a way that was hidden from the public record and amounts to procedural impropriety;
(ii) The decision directly concerns Mr Smith’s rights in an existing High Court claim, but was made after consulting with the defendants and without consulting him; 
(iii) Cabinet decided to remove Mr Smith’s rights without considering how the defendants would compensate for the damage they have caused, contrary to principles in the Regulatory Standards Act 2025; and 
(iv) The announcement was made, at least in part, knowing and intending it would disrupt the High Court process, and was therefore made for an improper purpose. 

Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Minister’s announcement and the Cabinet decision were unlawful.

Lawyers for Climate Action NZ alongside climate specialist Paul Young filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority alleging that Mazda New Zealand is misleading consumers about the environmental effectiveness of its tree-planting programme. 

The complaint focused on Mazda’s website advertising that stated that it funds the planting of five trees for each new car sold, and claims that “Over each vehicle's 5-year warranty term, these 5 trees will [..] mitigate any environmental impact from CO2 emissions…” which they state grossly overstates the actual impact of planting those trees. 

The Complaints Board Chair accepted the complaint to go before the Complaints Board to consider whether the Advertising Standards Code had been breached. As part of the self-regulatory process, advertisers have the option of amending or removing their advertising after receiving a complaint. In this case the Advertiser confirmed they had removed the advertisement. As the advertisement has been removed, the Chair has ruled the complaint as settled on March 12, 2026.

On October 13, 2025, Richard Craig, an individual, filed a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) against Television New Zealand Ltd, the owner of channel TVNZ. At issue was TVNZ’s Breakfast programme that followed New Zealand Government’s announcement of its intention to reduce New Zealand’s legislated 2050 methane target in the Climate Change Response Act 2002. In the programme, two interviews on the 2050 methane target were included: the first with the Executive Director of a climate NGO, and the second, 45 minutes later, with New Zealand’s Prime Minister. 

According to Craig, the Breakfast show breached the balance and fairness standards set out in the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. Specifically, Craig alleged that the NGO representative received “patsy questioning” while the Prime Minister was “scrutinised with vigour”, when both sides should have been treated equally.  

On April 1, 2026, the BSA did not uphold the complaint. 

In relation to balance, the BSA accepted that the balance standard applied, as the broadcast was regarding a “controversial issue of public importance,” of which the “Government’s decision to reduce the methane emissions target” fell into. However, the BSA was satisfied that TVNZ met the requirements for balance by including interviews that presented opposing perspectives, with both sides having ample opportunity to present and discuss their views. 

Responding to the complainant's concerns about the interview style and approach, the BSA noted that “the balance standard does not dictate how perspectives are to be presented or what questions should be asked to elicit those perspectives — those are within the broadcaster's editorial discretion.” Further, the balance standard does not require that each perspective be given equal airtime. Instead, the balance standard requires only that broadcasters give a “fair voice to significant alternative perspectives,” which “clearly happened here, with Lawyers for Climate Action's position being the lead “angle” near the beginning of the programme, and [the Prime Minister] presenting the Government's position in response later in the programme.” The BSA did not agree that there was any “skew” in the way these interviews were presented. 

In relation to the fairness standard, the BSA noted that “fairness” does not address the audience or whether facts or issues are “fairly” or misleadingly conveyed, and was not relevant to the complainant’s concern that the presenter’s interview approach and TVNZ’s “skewed presentation” created unfairness for viewers. Instead, BSA held that these concerns were more appropriately addressed under the balance standard above, in considering whether the interview approaches resulted in an unbalanced discussion or left viewers uninformed (which the BSA found not to be the case). 

In February 2025, the Coastal Ratepayers Union (CRU) filed for a judicial review at the Wellington High Court regarding the Kāpiti Coast District Council’s (KCDC) public-facing information on coastal properties. The CRU alleged that the KCDC’s information on coastal properties, specifically hazard maps and Land Information Memorandums (LIMS), exaggerates climate risks such as sea level rise, floods, and erosion. 

Subsequently, the CRU requested that the council incorporate information from a report it had commissioned independently by retired Waikato University lecturer Willem de Lange into its report.
The CRU contended that Lange’s report provided an alternative assessment of the risks of coastal hazards, which should also be made available to property owners. The KCDC has since agreed to include the CRU’s commissioned report, marking a shift in climate risk warning material.


Geography

New Zealand

Recent cases