Smith v Fonterra
A landmark Supreme Court case that asks a simple but profound question: Can large corporate emitters be held legally accountable for the climate harm their emissions cause?
Brought by Mike Smith, a Kaumatua (Māori elder) and community leader, the case challenges some of Aotearoa New Zealand's biggest greenhouse gas emitters for their role in driving climate change and the damage it is already causing to people, communities, and the natural world.
Filed: 2019
Case brought to challenge major emitters for climate harm
7 Defendants
Some of Aotearoa's biggest greenhouse gas emitters
Supreme Court
Determining whether climate harm can be tested through the courts
Why this case matters
Climate change is no longer a future threat. It is here now — flooding homes, eroding coastlines, damaging infrastructure, and threatening whenua, marae, urupā, mahinga kai, and the ability of whānau to remain safely in their rohe.
While governments regulate emissions, there is currently no clear pathway for communities to seek civil accountability from those who contribute most to the problem.
This case asks whether the law can — and should — evolve to meet the reality of the climate crisis.
What the case argues
The claim is grounded in established areas of civil law (tort law), alongside a proposed new climate-specific legal pathway. It argues that:
Large-scale emissions can amount to a public nuisance, interfering with rights held in common by the public
Major emitters may owe a duty of care where climate harm is foreseeable
The courts should recognise a new form of civil wrong for damage to the climate system itself
The case does not seek to replace government climate policy.
It asks whether regulation alone is enough when serious harm is foreseeable and already occurring.
Why the Supreme Court is involved
The Supreme Court is considering whether climate harm can be tested through the courts, or whether accountability for emissions sits solely with Parliament and regulators.
At stake is whether companies can rely on compliance with minimum regulatory standards while continuing activities that contribute to escalating, cumulative harm — or whether civil responsibility still applies.
The Court's decision will shape how climate accountability works in Aotearoa for generations to come.
A case grounded in justice and responsibility
For Māori, climate change is not only an environmental or economic issue. It is a cultural and intergenerational one, affecting whakapapa, kaitiakitanga, and relationships with place.
This case reflects a growing global movement calling for:
responsibility from those who profit most from high-emissions systems
protection for communities facing the greatest risk
laws that recognise climate harm as real, foreseeable, and actionable
What happens next
The Supreme Court's ruling will determine whether this case can proceed to trial.
Whatever the outcome, Smith v Fonterra already stands as a defining moment in New Zealand's climate justice story — and a signal that communities are no longer willing to accept inaction without accountability.
Explore the Legal Arguments
Dive into the legal framework, court documents, and expert testimony that form the foundation of this landmark case
Support Climate Justice
Learn more, follow the case, and stand with climate accountability
Get Involved