New Zealand Moves to Block Private Climate Lawsuits Against Companies Including Fonterra

New Zealand's government has announced plans to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent courts from finding companies liable in private cases for climate change-related harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the legislative change will apply to both current and future court proceedings, including a high-profile High Court case brought against six major emitters. The proposed change positions New Zealand as one of the first major jurisdictions to actively restrict climate-related private litigation against corporations through statutory reform.

 

The Smith v Major Emitters Case

 

The legislative change directly affects a novel climate liability case brought by activist Michael Smith against six companies, including dairy giant Fonterra Co-Operative Group. The case alleges that the companies' greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to climate change and harmed Smith's land, interests and cultural rights. The trial had been scheduled to proceed next year and has been closely watched internationally as one of the more ambitious tests of corporate climate liability in a common law jurisdiction.

The case represented an attempt to extend traditional tort law principles to address climate damages, drawing on doctrines of nuisance, negligence and breach of duty. Smith's claim sought to establish that major emitters could be held individually accountable for their contributions to broader climate harm. The proposed legislative intervention would effectively end this litigation pathway in New Zealand, although similar cases continue to progress through courts in other jurisdictions globally.

 

Government Rationale for the Legislative Change

 

Goldsmith said that climate litigation was undermining business confidence and investment, and that New Zealand's response to climate change should be managed through parliament, the Emissions Trading Scheme and existing climate legislation. He argued that courts are not the right place to resolve claims of harm from climate change, adding that tort law is not suited to the complex environmental, economic and social issues involved. The framing positions climate policy as inherently legislative rather than judicial territory.

The government has clarified that the change will not alter its responsibilities under climate legislation or businesses' obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme. This distinction is intended to preserve the integrity of existing climate policy frameworks while removing what the government views as inappropriate judicial intervention. The approach reflects a broader policy view that climate response should be coordinated through dedicated regulatory mechanisms rather than fragmented across individual court rulings.

 

Read more: ECB Updates Climate and Nature Risk Compendium Drawn from Practices at 60+ European Banks

 

The Global Climate Litigation Landscape

 

Governments around the world are grappling with a surge in climate-related litigation seeking to hold companies and states accountable for emissions-related harm. Cases are progressing through courts in Europe, the United States and Australia, with each case testing different theories of corporate responsibility and the limits of judicial intervention in climate policy. The volume and ambition of climate litigation has expanded significantly over the past five years, becoming a recognised feature of the global climate landscape.

The International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion last July affirming that states have legal obligations under international law to address climate harm. The opinion has been cited by climate advocates as strengthening the legal foundation for holding both governments and major emitters accountable through courts. New Zealand's proposed legislative change represents a counter-current to this trend, suggesting that legislative bodies may seek to define the boundaries of climate litigation rather than allowing courts to do so case by case.

 

Reaction from Climate Advocates

 

International climate advocacy group ClientEarth, which has filed lawsuits against countries and companies over climate-related issues, described the New Zealand move as deeply concerning. The organisation cited the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion and argued that people must be able to test states' and corporations' climate obligations through the courts. ClientEarth said restricting access to courts is bad for justice, bad for the environment, and bad for democracy and the rule of law.

The reaction reflects broader concerns among climate advocates that legislative interventions to limit climate litigation could establish precedents in other jurisdictions facing similar cases. If New Zealand's approach is replicated elsewhere, the global climate litigation movement could face significant new structural constraints. The outcome of the legislative process in New Zealand will therefore be closely watched by both proponents and opponents of corporate climate accountability through judicial channels.

 

Implications for Corporate Climate Risk

 

For companies operating in New Zealand, the proposed legislative change reduces a specific category of climate liability risk that has been growing in significance globally. Fonterra and the other defendants in the Smith case would face reduced exposure if the legislation is enacted as proposed, although they would still need to comply with existing climate regulations and the Emissions Trading Scheme. The change does not eliminate climate-related risk altogether but does close one important avenue for legal challenge.

The broader corporate sector will need to assess how the New Zealand approach influences risk management strategies in other jurisdictions where similar litigation is progressing. Climate liability risk has become an important consideration in corporate strategy, insurance and disclosure practices over recent years. The trajectory of legislative responses to climate litigation in different jurisdictions will shape how this risk evolves in the coming years.

 

Explore OneStop ESG Marketplace: Regulation and Compliance

 

The Dairy Sector and New Zealand's Economy

 

The inclusion of Fonterra among the defendants in the Smith case is particularly significant given the central role of dairy in New Zealand's economy and emissions profile. Agricultural emissions, dominated by methane from livestock, represent the largest share of New Zealand's overall greenhouse gas footprint. Managing the climate impact of the agricultural sector has been a persistent challenge for successive governments, balancing environmental ambition with economic dependence on dairy and meat exports.

The proposed legislative change can be viewed in part as a response to the strategic importance of agricultural exporters and concerns about their exposure to litigation-driven costs. Critics may argue that this reflects regulatory capture by major emitting sectors, while supporters could contend that it preserves coherent policy management of a sensitive sector through dedicated regulatory mechanisms. The political balance between these views will shape the legislative process and the broader policy response.

 

Outlook for Climate Litigation Globally

 

The New Zealand legislative move introduces a new variable into the global climate litigation landscape that has otherwise been characterised by expanding judicial activity. Whether other jurisdictions follow with similar legislative restrictions will depend on the political appetite of governments and the trajectory of high-profile climate cases progressing through courts. Some jurisdictions may see legislative restrictions as protecting economic competitiveness, while others may view court-based accountability as essential to climate policy credibility.

The trajectory of climate litigation as a tool for accountability will be tested over the coming years through both individual case outcomes and legislative responses such as New Zealand's. Sustained progress on corporate climate disclosure, transition planning and emission reductions may reduce some of the impetus for private litigation. However, the persistent gap between climate ambition and real-world emission reductions will continue to create pressure for legal accountability mechanisms in many jurisdictions.