The civil proceeding Smith v Fonterra remains the most prominent piece of ‘climate change litigation’ in New Zealand, it being a claim in tort targeting corporate greenhouse gas emitters (and suppliers of fossil fuels) for alleged public nuisance. However, such climate change-related litigation may not just be a one-way street. While not yet seen in New Zealand, globally civil cases against climate activists appear to be increasing.
Recent overseas cases demonstrate this trend. In March 2025, a United States jury in North Dakota awarded significant damages against defendants connected to a protest which disrupted the construction of an oil pipeline. (Energy Transfer LP v Greenpeace). Similar claims are legally tenable under New Zealand law, including but not limited to civil claims for the tort of trespass. As patience with the economic cost of business disruption caused by activists waned, and corporates seek to protect critical infrastructure, the emergence of such litigation here seems likely.
Global trends
As of 30 June 2025, 3,099 climate-related cases had been filed worldwide spanning 55 jurisdictions and 24 international or regional adjudicatory bodies [1]. Globally, there has been a decline in climate-related filings since these peaked at over 300 new filings in 2021 [2].
The Grantham Research Institute’s 2025 Snapshot provides further insight: 226 cases were filed worldwide in 2024, including 164 in the United States [3]. Of these, 60 cases (or 27%) involved “non-climate-aligned arguments”, 88% of which were filed in the United States [4]. This marks an increase from 2023, where 21% of around 233 cases involved “non-climate-aligned arguments” and 1% involved both aligned and nonaligned arguments [5].
These trends suggest a growing diversification in climate litigation, with actions not being limited to plaintiffs using proceedings for the purposes of protest and to challenge climate policies.
Suits against climate activists
Although we have seen a slight global decline in the rate of new climate related litigation, civil and criminal suits against climate activists have been trending upwards, reflecting political pushback.
A notable example of this is the 2025 decision of Energy Transfer LP v Greenpeace [6]. On 19 March 2025, a jury awarded USD667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to Energy Transfer against Greenpeace defendants (Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Inc. USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc). A judge later reduced damages to USD345 million, which Energy Transfer says it intends to appeal [7].
Energy Transfer alleged that the Greenpeace defendants had unlawfully conspired to obstruct the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, an 1,886km underground oil pipeline that runs from North Dakota to Illinois. A section of the pipeline runs adjacent to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, where it crosses under Lake Oahe, north of the reservation’s boundary. From April 2016 to February 2017, the main protests against the pipeline were conducted. The protests involved protestors camping near the reservation land or in some cases entering onto Energy Transfer’s pipeline construction sites, peaceful marches, prayer and ceremony, and campaigning on social media. There were incidents of protestors damaging Energy Transfer’s property and nonviolent direct actions, including protestors chaining themselves to construction equipment. Multiple groups were involved in the protest.
Energy Transfer advanced 12 causes of action, involving trespass to land and chattel, conversion, nuisance, defamation, tortious interference, and aiding and abetting those torts, namely conversion, nuisance, and trespass. Energy Transfer alleged, among other things, that Greenpeace encouraged and orchestrated trespass, vandalism, and other illegal acts by protestors, resourced and trained protest groups, and spread misinformation about Energy Transfer [8].
Following the case being determined in favour of Energy Transfer, Greenpeace intends to request a new trial and appeal. Separately, Greenpeace International has brought an anti-intimidation suit (“antiSLAPP” suit) in the Netherlands, alleging false statements by Energy Transfer and claiming damages [9].
Another significant 2025 climate-related decision comes again from the United States, in the criminal space. In April 2025, two climate activists, Timothy Martin and Joanna Smith, were charged with conspiracy to commit an offence against the United States and damage to federal property, after smearing washable finger paint on the glass of a famous sculpture in the National Gallery of Arts. Each felony carries a maximum penalty of a USD250,000 fine and five years’ imprisonment. Smith entered a plea deal for a 60-day sentence, fines and restrictions, while Martin was convicted at trial and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment – a severe sentence for civil disobedience [10].
New Zealand context: Civil liability
Civil claims in tort – similar to Energy Transfer LP v Greenpeace – are legally viable in New Zealand. On comparable facts, they would seem to carry with them a similar prospect of success against those who cause loss by knowingly trespassing on the property of others (or damaging or obstructing infrastructure)
Additionally, such tort claims could target multiple tortfeasors, including secondary parties who knowingly assist primary actors engaged in unlawful or tortious acts. Three conditions must be met for joint liability. The defendant must have assisted the commission of an act by the primary tortfeasor, the assistance must have been pursuant to a common design on the defendant’s part, and the act must constitute a tort as against the claimant [11].
Assistance must be substantial, not trivial. That said, liability is not avoided merely because the primary tortfeasor’s contribution was greater, or because assistance was indirect. It makes no difference that the tort would have been committed regardless of the defendant’s assistance [12].
No cases have yet been brought against secondary parties linked to protests in New Zealand, but proceedings have been brought against primary actors. In Leason v Attorney-General, three peace activists were sued in trespass for damages for entering government property and deflating a satellite dome cover at the Government Communications Security Bureau facility [13]. The High Court granted summary judgment for trespass. The Court of Appeal upheld liability and rejected defences of selfdefence or defence of another, common law necessity, and ex turpi causa (where the cause of action is linked to illegality). With regard to the latter, the appellants argued that the facility’s activities were linked to supporting foreign wars, including the Iraq War, and contributed to the deaths of civilians.
Climate change litigation in New Zealand Civil liability for climate activism? All three defences failed due to requirements of imminent harm and proportionality, and absence of a link to illegality. The decision demonstrates that such defences cannot succeed merely based on protesters’ moral or political motivations.
Conclusion
The state of climate change litigation in New Zealand continues to evolve. Our law does allow for the possibility of civil claims in tort against activists, and to which associated organisations may be joined. Given global trends and the high-profile decision in Energy Transfer LP v Greenpeace, the prospect of a similar action in New Zealand is increasingly plausible.
Footnotes
[1] UN environment programme, Climate Change in the courtroom: Trends, impacts, and emerging lessons.
[2] At 6.
[3] Grantham Institute, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2025 snapshot
[4] At 7.
[5] Grantham Institute, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2024 snapshot.
[6] Energy Transfer LP v Greenpeace International 30-2019-CV-00180 (ND Dist Ct).
[8] Energy Transfer LP v Greenpeace International 30-2019-CV-00180 (ND Dist Ct) (Complaint): Dakota Access Pipeline Devel opers Launched New Lawsuit Against Protesters – The Climate Litigation Database.
[11] Sea Shepherd UK v Fish & Fish Limited [2015] UKSC 10 at [55].
[12] Sea Shepherd UK v Fish & Fish Limited at [57].
[13] Leason v Attorney-General [2013] NZCA 509; [2014] 2 NZLR 224.
Key contacts
Speak with one of our experts.
