Legal academics and environmental groups warn Government against blocking climate court claims
Tuesday, 19 May 2026
More than 100 academics, legal experts and environmental groups have written to ministers urging them to reconsider their decision to amend the law to prevent people suing businesses over greenhouse gas emissions.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced last week that the Government would retrospectively remove liability for such claims, citing a High Court case in which climate activist Mike Smith is suing several companies including Fonterra, Genesis Energy, New Zealand Steel and Z Energy for climate damage.
Goldsmith said the courts were not the right place to resolve such issues and amending the Climate Change Response Act (CCRA) would bring “clarity” for businesses around their obligations.
Signatories of the letter calling for a rethink include representatives from about two dozen environmental groups and about 30 legal academics, as well as philosophy professors from the universities of Otago, Auckland and Washington.
Read more:
Greens/Labour Government could use ‘urgency’ to repeal climate bill
Govt once more intervenes to protect business from expensive lawsuits
Lawyers for Climate Action acting executive director Laura MacKay noted that the Supreme Court had said Smith’s case would “face obstacles” but that the issues it raised were arguable and had unanimously ruled he should have his day in court.
“Individuals, communities, councils, business owners and the government itself are facing rapidly increasing costs for climate-related damage in New Zealand,” the letter stated.
In the absence of a “comprehensive legislative regime that allocates responsibility to pay for climate change damage”, the courts should hear claims, it said.
“If the law fails to provide any mechanism for plaintiffs seeking redress or to curb the harm being caused by emissions — as appears to be the outcome of the proposed amendment to the CCRA — then the relevance and the legitimacy of the law will be at risk.”
Retrospectively removing Smith’s right to bring the lawsuit “puts at risk a fundamental tenet of the rule of law: that parties have the right to have their case heard on the basis of the law as it stood at the time”, they said.
“The proposed amendment would act to shield a small number of companies from liability at the expense of the public interest.”
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said the Government would not be reviewing its stance.
“The best place for clarity around climate and emissions reduction is in the laws which this Government and this Parliament passes.
“We don’t want the courts to be driving that and creating uncertainty, and that’s why the Justice Minister has made the decision he has. ‘Certainty’ is really important for investment-decision making,” he said.
Watts denied the Government would be substituting one form of uncertainty for another by retrospectively removing the right to bring lawsuits.
“I don’t agree with that. What we’re doing there is clarifying clearly the intent of the legislation,” he said.