Climate activist Mike Smith takes Govt to court over bid to halt landmark lawsuit
Monday, 29 June 2026
Climate campaigner Mike Smith has launched a High Court challenge, alleging the Government acted unlawfully when it moved to retrospectively block his landmark climate lawsuit against some of the country’s biggest polluters.
The application for a judicial review, filed late last week, claims the Government's decision followed a corporate lobbying campaign and breached constitutional safeguards by attempting to extinguish legal rights after proceedings were already well advanced.
Smith is also relying in part on the Regulatory Standards Act 2025, controversial legislation championed by ACT to hold governments accountable for poor lawmaking.
“Climate change affects everything around us – the places we come from, the people we love, and the whenua we are responsible for protecting,” Smith said in a statement.
Read more:
Who wrote the climate law? Lobbyists' text closely mirrored in reform
Ombudsman opens inquiry into PM’s office over climate case records
“It is an issue where everyone should expect transparency, and where constitutional rights should be given full effect.”
The case stems from a civil claim Smith first filed in 2019 against six of the largest greenhouse gas emitters – Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy and BT Mining – alleging they should be held liable for damage caused by their emissions under public nuisance and a novel climate tort.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that the case could proceed to trial, clearing the way for a 15-week High Court hearing scheduled to begin in April 2027.
But, in May, Goldsmith announced the Government would amend the Climate Change Response Act to make clear that businesses could not be sued through climate tort claims. Smith says this was aimed at stymieing his case before it reached trial.
Goldsmith’s office would not confirm whether the bill would be introduced this week.
According to Smith’s statement of claim, obtained by The Post, the decision followed a lobbying effort by corporate defendants and their representatives.
The application asks the High Court to declare the Government's decision unlawful and set it aside. The court must now determine whether the application should proceed.
The claim points to revelations that staff from Fonterra and Z Energy avoided official government channels by printing briefing papers and hand-delivering them to the Prime Minister's chief policy adviser, Matt Burgess, in 2024.
One electronic copy was also sent to Burgess' personal email account rather than an official government address.
It remains unclear how, when, or through whom the proposals entered formal Government policy processes.
The Office of the Ombudsman is now investigating whether the Prime Minister's office (PMO) breached freedom of information laws.
Smith argues those steps had the effect of keeping the interactions outside normal public record systems.
When the documents came to light last month, PMO said it held no records of the meetings or briefings, a response Smith also says raises questions about compliance with the Public Records Act.
The judicial review advances three arguments.
Smith alleges the Government acted for an improper purpose by announcing legislation before it had even been drafted, with the intention of preventing his case from being heard.
He argues the decision breached natural justice protections under the BORA because the defendants were given access to ministers and officials while he, the litigant whose legal rights would be directly affected, did not have the same opportunity to be heard.
Smith argues Cabinet breached the anti-red tape law by failing to justify curtailing legal rights and consult those directly affected.
“Decisions about whether businesses should get a free pass should not be made by businesses and officials behind closed doors,” Smith said.
The judicial review is brought against Goldsmith, and the Attorney-General, currently Chris Bishop. Goldsmith was contacted for comment.