LCANZI v Climate Change Commission: Court of Appeal Judgment

Lawyers for Climate Action Press Release 

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Lawyers for Climate Action’s judicial review against the Climate Change Commission and Minister for Climate Change was released on 28 March 2025.

Unfortunately, although the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Climate Change Commission’s advice was in principle amenable to judicial review, it dismissed our grounds of review. Helpfully, the judgment held that there was a “high public interest” in this case, noting that we raised legal issues that are of “central importance” to “New Zealand’s response to the existential threat to humanity posed by climate change”. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal did not make an order of costs against Lawyers for Climate Action. 

We are reviewing the judgment carefully to consider its implications and our next steps. We will need to complete that review before we make a decision on whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 

The Court of Appeal largely adopted the reasoning of the High Court.  It agreed that it was “self-evident” that the Climate Change Commission did not apply the International Panel on Climate Change’s analysis on what is required to limit warming to 1.5°C on a like-for-like basis. However, the Court found that the Commission’s approach was not unlawful. 

The Court of Appeal largely adopted the reasoning of the High Court.  It agreed that it was “self-evident” that the Climate Change Commission did not apply the International Panel on Climate Change’s analysis on what is required to limit warming to 1.5°C on a like-for-like basis. However, the Court found that the Commission’s approach was not unlawful. 

The Court also agreed that emissions budgets are intended to serve the dual purpose of the Climate Change Response Act, being both the 2050 target and contributing to the goal of limiting warming to 1.5C.  However, it did not accept our argument that this makes contributing to the 1.5C goal a substantive bottom-line requirement under the Act. 

This intersection of science and law is complicated. Not all experts in these fields agree on everything, but several leading international climate scientists supported our case and gave evidence that there are serious problems with how NZ is describing, measuring, and evaluating our climate action. 

As an organisation, we came together five years ago because we knew that Aotearoa could and should be doing more to mitigate climate change. And we still need to see a stronger plan from the Government to take climate change seriously and meaningfully reduce emissions. The judgment is not an endorsement of New Zealand’s climate policy or of New Zealand’s climate targets.

While we’re disappointed with this outcome, we believe the case has brought valuable scrutiny to a critically important area of climate decision-making. We have won in court before, and are committed to continuing to use the law to drive more action on climate change.