Lliuya v RWE: Peruvian Farmer’s Landmark Challenge and what it means for Aotearoa NZ

A German court has delivered a landmark ruling in a climate lawsuit brought by Peruvian farmer, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, against German energy giant RWE. 

The German Higher Regional Court of Hamm has ruled that, in principle, companies can be held liable to people halfway around the world for their contribution to the impacts and risks of climate change . While the Court ultimately dismissed Mr Lliuya’s claim, its reasoning represents a significant breakthrough for climate litigation globally.

Below we explain what the Court decided, why it matters, and what it might mean in a New Zealand context with Smith v Fonterra still moving through the courts.

Background to Mr Lliuya’s Claim

Back in 2015, Mr Saúl Luciano Lliuya from Peru filed a claim against RWE, Germany’s largest electric utilities company. The claim alleged that RWE’s greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the melting of an Andean glacier, which has significantly raised the water level in the glacial Lake Palacocha in the Peruvian Andes. He argued that this, in turn, has created a significant flood risk to Lliuya’s home, in the nearby town of Hauaraz. 

In short, the claim contended that: 

• RWE has contributed to approximately 0.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution, with anthropogenic climate change being the main cause of glacial meltdown in the Peruvian Andes; 

• The specific contribution of RWE to climate change is about to be calculated and measured, meaning that it’s possible to show causation between RWE’s greenhouse gas emissions and the floor risk to Mr Lliuya; 

• The court should grant an order requiring RWE to make a pro rata contribution to flood protection measures in proportion to its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions - around $17,000

Originally, the district court dismissed the claims on the basis that there was no “linear chain of causation” between RWE’s emission of greenhouse gases, and the particular impact of climate change at issue in the case, and that it could not provide any effective redress: even if it ordered RWE to stop emitting greenhouse gases, the glacier would not stop melting.

However, on appeal, a German court found that RWE could, in principle, be liable for damage caused to Lliuya, on the basis that the company’s emissions contributed to the threat posed to Lliuya’s livelihood by the overflowing glacial lake. The Court held that the case should proceed to the evidentiary phase - which culminated in this week’s decision.

The Regional Court’s 2025 Decision

The Court has affirmed that companies may have a duty under German civil law to prevent harm caused by their greenhouse gas emissions, even across continents. If there is a threat of adverse effects, the company may be obliged to take preventive measures. If the company refuses to do so, it may be liable for a proportionate share of the costs of addressing potential harm, even before actual harm occurs. The distance between RWE’s power plants and Lliuya’s residence in Peru alone was not a sufficient reason alone to declare the claim as unfounded.

Ultimately, the claim was dismissed because the evidence showed that there was no concrete danger to Lliyua’s property. The probability that any water from the glacial lake would reach the Lliuya’s property within the next 30 years was only about 1%, which the Court found to be too low.

What it means for New Zealand

Similar issues are being tested in New Zealand courts. This case draws some obvious parallels to Mike Smith’s groundbreaking tort claim against the country’s largest corporate emitters, but doesn’t take the issue much further for Mr Smith’s purposes.

In Smith v Fonterra, Mr Smith alleges that those companies’ greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global heating, and are thereby causing harm to him and his whānau, descendants, and others. In 2024, this case successfully survived a strike-out application, with the Supreme Court finding that “Mr Smith gets his day in Court”. 

One of the key issues in that case is whether it is possible for Mr Smith to establish sufficient causation between the actions of the defendant companies and the harm Mr Smith faced. The Supreme Court found that this issue, which will turn on evidence on issues like the scientific attribution of climate change and tikanga, needed to be considered at trial and that “real caution is necessary before pre-emptively disposing of a claim where seriously arguable non-trivial harm is in issue”.

Mr Smith’s trial is set down for 2027 in the New Zealand High Court.

The above is based on the Court’s press release which can be found here (this decision was delivered orally and at the time of publishing there was no official English translation of the case). To find out more about the case, there is a full website here.