Topical issues

Climate Law Developments Against Corporate Entity Emissions

Climate Law Developments Against Corporate Entity Emissions

Climate law continues to impact the domestic and international legal sphere. The recent decision to allow a tort-based case on the liability of major fossil fuel entity emitters to go to trial, may impact New Zealand’s climate policy. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Mike Smith’s case in a judgment delivered on 7 February 2024. Smith is the spokesperson for climate change at the National Iwi Chairs Forum for tribal leaders.

The decision is significant as Smith’s case is brought against seven large corporate entity emitters, namely Fonterra Co-operative Group, Genesis Energy, New Zealand Steel, Channel Infrastructure NZ, BT Mining, Dairy Holdings and Z Energy. Smith’s case was brought against these companies in 2020 and culminated into a Supreme Court decision allowing the High Court trial to advance.

The legal action is driven by the desire for companies to strive for net zero emissions. The driving force for this is New Zealand’s push for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 as set out under the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. Three causes of action were raised in the tort of public nuisance, negligence and a newly proposed tort which would involve climate damage that is cognizable at law. Smith has yet to present his evidence on why these companies should be held liable for their actions, but the decision to go to trial is in itself starting an open conversation in the somewhat ambiguous sphere of climate law.

The repercussions of this trial will be interesting for domestic and international law, to potentially hold large climate emitters liable for the harm their pollution creates. Or at the very least, start an important conversation as climate-related discourse continues to impact government policy and laws.

Brittany Baugh

Share
Published by
Brittany Baugh

Recent Posts

Court of Appeal decision: what happens when builders go bankrupt and leave homes unfinished?

In a recent case, the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Francis v Gross made…

2 days ago

Key takeaways from recent ‘reckless trading’ judgement

Insights on reckless trading and director liability: a recent High Court case A recent High…

2 days ago

The Court of Appeal finds Uber drivers are employees

Uber drivers classified as employees: Court of Appeal dismisses Uber's appeal The Court of Appeal…

1 week ago

Congratulations Brooke Courtney Elite Women 2024

Congratulations to Brooke Courtney, named as one of NZ Lawyer’s Elite Women of 2024 We…

3 weeks ago

Sharp Tudhope welcomes Special Counsel Tanya Drummond

We are delighted to announce the appointment of Tanya Drummond as Special Counsel, a strategic…

3 weeks ago

Preference Shares Explained: What They Mean for Startups and Investors

Investing in an early-stage startup is inherently high risk. One way investors seek to reduce…

1 month ago