Northland activist loses greenhouse gas case

The High Court says the seven companies named in the action, including the NZ Refining Company, were acting in accordance with all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the action was dismissed. Photo / Tania Whyte

A better course for aggrieved victims of climate change is to hold the government responsible rather than seek declaration through the courts, which are poorly equipped to deal with the issue, the High Court has ruled.

The ruling follows an unsuccessful attempt by Northland activist Mike Smith to legally enforce a reduction in greenhouse emissions by corporate giants, including Marsden Pt-based New Zealand Refining Company, Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Z Energy, Dairy Holdings, New Zealand Steel and BT Mining.

Smith, of Ngapuhi descent and the climate change spokesman for the Iwi Chairs' Forum, filed a statement of claim in the High Court alleging negligence, public nuisance and breach of duty in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from the companies.

He also sought injunctions that required each of the companies named in the proceedings to cease emissions from their activities by 2030. The companies applied to have the proceedings struck out, arguing Smith's claims raised issues that could not properly be resolved through the courts.

Justice Edwin Wylie said since Parliament has put in place a comprehensive mechanism designed to deal with climate change, the better course for aggrieved victims of climate change was to hold the government responsible.

He said the injunctions sought by Smith would require the court to go beyond enforcing the terms of the Climate Change Response Act, and to apply an emissions accounting methodology to determine gross emissions from each of the companies.

"Any orders would require continued judicial supervision — certainly up to 2030 and perhaps beyond. The court's supervisory role would become akin to that of a regulator, requiring specialist, and not judicial, expertise.

"If the courts were to reach different conclusions than Parliament, there could be inconsistent and different net zero emission targets and different ways of dealing with the problems thrown up by climate change," Justice Wylie said.

He said Smith was seeking declarations in court in order to put in place his own bespoke emissions reduction scheme.

A person, he ruled, could only be guilty of a public nuisance as alleged by Smith if he or she did an unlawful act or did not discharge a legal duty.

However, the judge said that was not the case with the seven companies as they were acting in accordance with all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Smith did not return messages seeking comment.