We bring climate litigation that holds governments and companies to account
We bring and support strategic climate litigation where our climate laws need to be enforced or clarified - driving greater accountability and ambition on climate change.
We work to ensure that local and central government have ambitious climate laws, plans, and policies that are evidence-based and consistent with the Paris Agreement, the rule of law, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
We’ve also challenged greenwashing, so that companies are honest with customers about their impact on the climate.
We’re working to shift the economic incentives and flow of finance away from high-polluting areas by requiring and enforcing transparent and accurate climate reporting. We’ve also supported the novel use of tort law to hold high-polluting companies to account for the harms of their emissions in the Supreme Court.
The Ambition and Integrity Challenge
LCANZI v Climate Change Commission and Minister of Climate Change
We are challenging the ambition and integrity of New Zealand’s NDC and emissions budgets.
-
We are concerned that the Climate Change Commission made critical errors in its advice to the Minister when setting New Zealand’s NDC and emissions budget, and has mis-applied the Climate Change Response Act 2002.
-
These are two critically important targets for New Zealand’s emissions, acting as sinking lids on available emissions into the future. Emissions budgets are five-yearly targets that act as stepping stones towards New Zealand meeting its long-term 2050 goal. And the NDC is our commitment under the Paris Agreement to achieve a 50% reduction of net emissions below our gross 2005 level by 2030.
We think that both targets are not ambitious enough, and that NZ isn’t playing its fair share in the global effort to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. At its heart, this case is about the fact New Zealand isn’t cutting its emissions fast enough - and the Commission’s advice was unlawful.
-
We filed this case in 2021. In April 2025, we filed an application for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court.
The Emissions Reduction Plan Challenge
LCANZI and ELI v Minister of Climate Change
We’ve launched major legal proceedings against the Minister of Climate Change, alleging that the Government’s emissions reduction plan fails to fulfil basic requirements of the law.
-
Along with our friends at the Environmental Law Initiative, we are arguing that the plans don’t meet the requirements of the Climate Change Response Act 2002.
This is the first challenge to an Emissions Reduction Plan under the Climate Change Response Act - and it is also the first case in the world to challenge a government’s heavy reliance on tree planting to achieve climate targets.
We’re filing this case because it’s critical our government is held to account. The world’s leading scientists have made clear that this is the critical decade for climate action - but the NZ government has been quietly cutting climate policies, and relying on planting pine trees as an alternative.
As it stands, the Government’s emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. That’s why we are taking legal action to hold the Minister of Climate Change to account.
-
We think New Zealand’s Emissions Reduction Plan is unlawful and unambitious.
We’re seeking court orders that the Minister reconsider the Emissions Reduction Plan so that it complies with the core requirements of the Climate Change Response Act.
We’re also seeking declarations from the court on what the Climate Change Response Act requires - both in terms of when Governments want to change pre-existing Emissions Reduction Plans, and when Governments set new Emissions Reduction Plans
-
We filed the case in the High Court in June 2025. We will be heading to the Wellington High Court for a three-day hearing in March 2026.
The ETS Challenge
LCANZI v Minister of Climate Change
In 2023, we successfully challenged the Minister for Climate Change’s decisions on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - New Zealand’s main climate policy lever.
-
The Minister had made decisions on price and unit settings that were not line line with the Climate Change Commission’s advice and wouldn’t have driven emissions reductions in line with what’s required by our emissions reduction targets.
-
Our win significantly increased the carbon price, and restored confidence to both the ETS and the Climate Change Commission. As a result of our case, the supply of units will now be in accordance with our emissions budgets, and the changes will help reduce the large stockpile of existing units
Our case also clarified the law that applies to future ETS decision-making, helping ensure those decisions will be more robust and in line with our climate targets.
Watch Dr James Every-Palmer KC, Lawyers for Climate Action’s co-founder and counsel in our ETS judicial review, explain our successful judicial review of New Zealand’s ETS settings, its implications, and the factors that made it a success
Z Energy Greenwashing Case
Consumer NZ, LCANZI, ELI v Z Energy
We brought NZ’s first greenwashing litigation alongside Consumer NZ and Environmental Law Initiative against Z Energy, one of New Zealand’s largest petrol companies.
In November 2025, we announced that we settled the case - the first settlement of a climate litigation case in NZ.
-
We are concerned that the Climate Change Commission made critical errors in its advice to the Minister when setting New Zealand’s NDC and emissions budget, and has mis-applied the Climate Change Response Act 2002.
-
These are two critically important targets for New Zealand’s emissions, acting as sinking lids on available emissions into the future. Emissions budgets are five-yearly targets that act as stepping stones towards New Zealand meeting its long-term 2050 goal. And the NDC is our commitment under the Paris Agreement to achieve a 50% reduction of net emissions below our gross 2005 level by 2030.
We think that both targets are not ambitious enough, and that NZ isn’t playing its fair share in the global effort to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. At its heart, this case is about the fact New Zealand isn’t cutting its emissions fast enough - and the Commission’s advice was unlawful.
-
We filed this case in 2021. In April 2025, we filed an application for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court.
The Transport Challenge
All Aboard v Auckland Transport
Lawyers for Climate Action is a founding member of All Aboard, a coalition of not-for-profits that came together with the shared goal of decarbonising the transport system.
We brought a judicial review against Auckland Transport for its lacklustre transport plan, the Regional Land Transport Plan for 2021-2031, which promised to increase Auckland’s land transport emissions. We argued that this was unlawful.
-
Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city, and adopted a transport plan that does nothing to address the climate crisis. Despite the fact transport accounts for almost 40 percent of Auckland's emissions, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council produced a plan that provides for virtually no reduction in these emissions.
We brought this case becuase we thought is a clear breach of their legal obligations to prepare a plan that is in the public interest and to act for the benefit of existing and future communities. Those legal obligations needed to be tested
-
The High Court decided that Auckland Transport and the Council had not acted unlawfully in adopting the RLTP, noting that the RLTP involved high-level policy judgments which the Court was not in a position to evaluate.
However, the case still made a significant impact. The pressure and transparency resulting from the case led to Auckland Council establishing the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway - which sets out a far more ambitious and credible transport strategy for Auckland.
The Gas Greenwashing Challenge
Advertising Standards Authority complaint of greenwashing
In 2021, Lawyers for Climate Action brought a successful complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, complaining about First Gas’ advertising that it was going “zero carbon”.
-
In 2021, we successfully complained against First Gas’ advertising that it was going “zero carbon”.
In their ads, First Gas claimed:
“New Zealand’s heading towards zero carbon so we’re ensuring our gas is going zero carbon too. You know what that means for you? Absolutely nothing. You can continue doing what you love. And help change the world, without changing too much of yours. Find out more at gasischanging.co.nz.”
-
We complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that the ads were greenwashing, as they made unsubstantiated claims. At the Authority, First Gas acknowledged that “any large-scale changes are still some way off”.
The Advertising Standards Board upheld our complaint.
Smith v Fonterra
In 2023, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ appeared as intervener in the Supreme Court hearing, Smith v Fonterra.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed not to strike out Mr Smith’s claims that seven of New Zealand’s largest emitting companies could be held liable under tort law for the harms of their emissions.
The Supreme Court, however, was not prepared to find that the causes of action were untenable - allowing Mr Smith to get “his day in court”.
Lawyers for Climate Action, represented by Jenny Cooper KC, James Every-Palmer KC, and Jack Cundy, played a small role in the case, appearing in the Supreme Court as intervene. You can read our submissions here.
