Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group
Genesis Energy
Dairy Holding
New Zealand Steel
Z Energy
Channel Infrastructure NZ
BT Mining
Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd and others, is a landmark climate case brought by Mike Smith, a Kaumatua (Māori elder) and community leader, against a group of major corporate emitters in Aotearoa New Zealand. The case argues that a small number of large companies— through their greenhouse gas emissions—have materially contributed to climate change harms, and that the law of tort should be able to respond. In simple terms: it asks whether a person (and by extension, communities) can take a company to court for climate-related harm using wellestablished civil causes of action, even where those emissions are otherwise regulated by government policy.
What the case is about
At its core, the case is not framed as a debate about whether climate change is real. It accepts the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gas emissions are a major driver. Instead, the legal question is who can be held responsible, and how, when the harm is widespread, cumulative, and unfolds across time.
The claim targets a number of companies alleged to be among New Zealand's most significant contributors to emissions. The argument is that these emissions—when viewed together and over time—have helped drive effects such as sea level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, storm surge, and the increasing severity of extreme weather. The claim also emphasises that these impacts land disproportionately on Māori and coastal communities: threatening whenua, marae, urupā, mahinga kai, cultural relationships with place, and the ability of whānau to remain safely in their homes and rohe.
The legal tools: why "tort law" matters
Tort law is the part of civil law that deals with harm—things like negligence, nuisance, and other wrongs that cause loss or damage. Mr Smith's case is notable because it leans on three pathways commonly discussed in climate litigation:
1. Public nuisance
This argues that large-scale emissions can unreasonably interfere with rights held in common by the public—like health, safety, and the use of public resources and environments.
2. Negligence
This focuses on whether large emitters owe a duty of care to people who foreseeably suffer harm from climate impacts—and whether failing to reduce emissions or adjust conduct could breach that duty.
3. A proposed new tort ("climate system damage")
A central feature of the case is its invitation for the courts to recognise a new, climatespecific civil wrong—one tailored to the unique nature of climate harm: cumulative, crossgenerational, and affecting the stability of the climate system itself.
Together, these arguments ask the courts to consider whether existing legal principles can evolve to meet a new kind of risk—one that is not localised to a single accident or spill, but still has identifiable contributors and foreseeable consequences.
Why it reached the Supreme Court
The case reached the Supreme Court because it raises big constitutional and legal questions about the boundary between courts and Parliament. The defendants argue that climate policy is primarily for elected government—through instruments like emissions trading, sector regulation, and national targets—and that courts are not the right place to "set climate policy." Mr Smith argues the opposite: that regulation doesn't remove civil accountability, and that courts have always had a role in addressing harmful conduct when the evidence and legal principles justify it—especially where harms are serious and rights and interests (including tikanga-based interests) are at stake.
The Supreme Court's involvement signals the significance of the issues: whether New Zealand law should allow climate harms to be tested through civil liability, and what standards might apply to big emitters whose conduct is lawful in one sense (regulated), but still harmful in another (causing foreseeable damage).
What a win (or loss) could mean
If the claim is allowed to proceed (or ultimately succeeds), it could reshape how climate responsibility works in New Zealand by:
- opening a pathway for civil accountability alongside government regulation
- increasing pressure on large emitters to accelerate emissions reductions and disclose climate risk
- recognising that climate harms are not only economic and infrastructural, but also cultural, relational, and intergenerational—including impacts on Māori rights and responsibilities to whenua and taonga
- setting a precedent that could influence other climate cases domestically and internationally, especially in common-law countries watching how courts treat climate nuisance, negligence, and new tort claims
If the claim is stopped (or fails), it would still matter: it would clarify the limits of tort law in climate contexts and may push the debate back toward Parliament, regulators, and political processes to create new accountability mechanisms.
Why it matters beyond the courtroom
Whatever the outcome, Smith v Fonterra has already become a focal point for a broader public conversation: what justice looks like in a climate crisis, who bears responsibility, and how the law can protect communities when harm is foreseeable and escalating.
For many supporters, the case is also about values: mana, kaitiakitanga, and the right of communities—especially those least responsible for emissions—to demand meaningful responsibility from those who have benefited most from high-emitting systems. It is framed as part of a wider shift happening globally: people turning to courts not as a substitute for politics, but as a way of ensuring that powerful actors cannot hide behind delay, complexity, or regulatory minimalism while the risks to human life, culture, and place continue to rise.