Judicial review arose from nationally determined contribution, emission budgets
New Zealand’s Supreme Court rejected permission to appeal requested by Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Incorporated (LCANZI), who commenced judicial review proceedings challenging aspects of advice from the Climate Change Commission (CCC) and decisions by the minister of climate change.
Through the emissions budgets under part 1B of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCRA), New Zealand aims to achieve its 2050 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target under s 5Q of the CCRA. Meanwhile, s 5W provides the purpose for the minister’s imposition of the country’s emissions budgets.
With the CCC’s advice under ss 5J, 5K, and 5ZA of the CCRA from 2021–22, the minister issued significant decisions about New Zealand’s climate change response from 2022–35, setting three emissions budgets for 2022–35 and amending New Zealand’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.
Specifically, on 31 October 2021, the minister announced his decision to amend the NDC. On 16 May 2022, he published emissions budgets for 2022–25, 2026–30, and 2031–35 in the New Zealand Gazette.
The case of Lawyers for Climate Action New Zealand Incorporated v Climate Change Commission [2025] NZSC 200 arose after the courts rejected LCANZI’s challenges against aspects of the CCC’s advice and the minister’s decisions. LCANZI sought leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal and made no order concerning costs. The Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeal.
The Supreme Court accepted that New Zealand’s climate change response, including its methodology for calculating emissions budgets and NDCs, was obviously a matter of real and considerable public importance.
However, the Supreme Court did not see enough prospects of success in the arguments in connection with the emissions budgets and the NDC to justify granting leave.
Regarding the budget challenge, the Supreme Court found the bottom-line argument untenable, considering the generalised terms of s 5W(a).
The Supreme Court saw insufficient prospects of success in the substantive and reasoned assessment argument and the misdirection arguments, given the substantial inquiry record and the CCC’s and the minister’s consideration.
Regarding the NDC challenge, the Supreme Court found inadequate prospects of success in the arguments in favour of a mathematical or logical error to warrant granting leave.
Based on the record, the Supreme Court described a gross-net approach as a considered response to the country’s distinct context.
The Supreme Court noted that the CCC explained why it adopted a gross-net approach, while the minister received officials’ advice supporting the gross-net approach, which the minister and Cabinet ultimately accepted.
