Media Kit
1. Case Overview (At a Glance)
Case name: Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd & Ors
Court: Supreme Court of New Zealand
Plaintiff: Mike Smith (Māori elder and community leader)
Defendants: Major corporate greenhouse gas emitters in Aotearoa New Zealand
Legal area: Tort law (public nuisance, negligence, proposed climate tort)
Core issue: Whether large emitters can be held civilly accountable for climate harm
One-sentence summary:
Smith v Fonterra is a landmark Supreme Court case asking whether companies that significantly contribute to climate change can be held legally responsible for the harm their emissions cause — even where those emissions are regulated by government policy.
2. What the Case Is About
The case argues that climate change is causing real, foreseeable harm to people, communities, infrastructure, ecosystems, and culturally significant land — and that a small number of large emitters have materially contributed to that harm through their greenhouse gas emissions.
Rather than challenging climate science or government policy, the case focuses on civil accountability: whether existing legal principles can respond when harm is widespread, cumulative, and ongoing.
The claim highlights impacts including:
- sea level rise and coastal erosion
- flooding and storm surge
- increased severity of extreme weather
- threats to Māori land, marae, urupā, and cultural relationships with place
3. Legal Claims Explained (Plain English)
The claim relies on established areas of civil law and invites the Court to consider legal evolution in response to climate harm:
Public Nuisance
Argues that large-scale emissions unreasonably interfere with public rights — including health, safety, and the use and enjoyment of land and environments.
Negligence
Asks whether major emitters owe a duty of care where climate harm is foreseeable, and whether continuing high-emissions conduct could breach that duty.
Proposed Climate System Damage Tort
Invites the Court to recognise a new civil wrong addressing damage to the climate system itself — reflecting the cumulative, cross-generational nature of climate harm.
4. Why the Supreme Court Is Involved
Lower courts recognised the seriousness of the issues and allowed the case to proceed to the Supreme Court due to its national and international significance.
The Supreme Court is considering:
- the role of courts alongside Parliament and regulators
- whether compliance with climate regulation precludes civil liability
- how the law should respond to systemic, long-term climate harm
The decision will shape how climate accountability operates within New Zealand's legal system and may influence other common-law jurisdictions.
5. Why This Case Matters
Legal significance
- Tests the boundaries of tort law in a climate context
- Addresses cumulative emissions rather than isolated incidents
- Contributes to emerging global climate jurisprudence
Social and cultural significance
- Centres the lived impacts of climate change on communities
- Recognises Indigenous relationships with land and intergenerational responsibility
- Highlights climate justice dimensions often absent from regulatory frameworks
Global relevance
- Part of a growing wave of climate litigation worldwide
- Watched closely by legal scholars, policymakers, and climate advocates
- Comparable to cases such as Milieudefensie v Shell and Urgenda
6. What the Case Is Not
- ❌ Not a challenge to climate science
- ❌ Not an attempt to replace government climate policy
- ❌ Not a claim for personal profit
✔ It is a public-interest case seeking legal clarity, accountability, and protection for communities facing climate harm.
7. Key Dates & Status
- Initial filing: [Insert year]
- High Court / Court of Appeal decisions: [Insert brief timeline]
- Supreme Court hearing: [Insert date if known]
- Current status: Supreme Court consideration of whether the claim can proceed to trial
(Dates can be updated as proceedings progress.)
8. Quotes for Attribution (Optional)
Mike Smith, Plaintiff:
"This case is about responsibility. Climate change is causing harm now, and the law must be able to respond when that harm is foreseeable and ongoing."
Case significance statement:
"Smith v Fonterra asks whether companies can rely solely on regulation while continuing activities that contribute to escalating climate damage."
9. Media Contacts
Primary spokesperson:
Mike Smith
[Email]
International : +64 21 504486
Domestic: 021504486
Legal / communications contact:
[Name / organisation]
[Email]
[Phone]
Media resources:
- Full case summary
- Court decisions and filings
- Backgrounders on climate tort law
- High-resolution images (on request)
10. About the Plaintiff
Mike Smith is a Māori elder, community leader, and climate advocate from Aotearoa New Zealand. His work focuses on environmental protection, intergenerational justice, and the responsibility of institutions to protect people and place from foreseeable harm.