Introduction

Australia and New Zealand are key jurisdictions for examining how private law responds to climate change. Around 60 corporate climate litigation cases, mostly from Australia, use corporate, financial, consumer, and tort law to address climate harms. These cases are driving incremental legal adaptations rather than major doctrinal shifts.

Corporate climate litigation

Corporate climate litigation has increased globally, with 40% of non-US climate cases in 2023 involving corporate defendants. In Australasia, cases focus on holding companies accountable through private legal avenues. The litigation ranges from early project-based disputes to broader strategic claims challenging corporate conduct and disclosures.

Australia’s corporate climate litigation experience

• Pathways in corporate and financial law: The Hutley opinions (2016–2021) argue that climate-related financial risks may trigger directors’ duties under the Corporations Act. No cases have tested this, but it influences boardroom risk management. In McVeigh v REST (2020), the trustee acknowledged climate risks as financially material, settling the case and committing to net-zero by 2050. Disclosure-related claims, such as Abrahams v CBA and Rossiter v ANZ, resulted in improved corporate reporting. ASIC has pursued enforcement, with major penalties issued—$11.3 million for Mercer and $12.9 million for Vanguard—for misleading green claims.
• Consumer law pathways: Consumer law is used to address greenwashing. ASIC and the ACCC have increased oversight, and civil society litigation is expanding. In Parents for Climate v EnergyAustralia (2025), the company withdrew a carbon offset-based product and admitted its limitations. ACCR v Santos challenges claims about gas as a clean fuel and net-zero targets.
• Emerging anti-regulatory uses of private law: Private law is also used to resist climate advocacy. In AGL v Greenpeace (2021), AGL sued over brand use. While partially successful, the case illustrates efforts to suppress public criticism.
• Pathways in tort law: Duty of care in negligence: Tort law remains largely unused against corporates. In Sharma, a duty of care by the federal minister was initially recognised but later overturned on appeal. The ruling limits tort pathways, although scholars suggest these could apply to corporate actors in future claims.

Developments in New Zealand

• Emerging anti-greenwashing complaints: New Zealand cases mirror Australian trends. In Firstgas (2021), an ad was found misleading. Consumer NZ v Z Energy (2023) challenges emissions claims under consumer law.
• Smith v Fonterra – pathways in torts law: In Smith v Fonterra (2024), the Supreme Court allowed tort claims for climate harm to proceed to trial. It found common law claims should not be blocked by regulation and rejected pre-emptive strike-outs where serious harm is arguable.
• Comparing the Australian and New Zealand experience: New Zealand shows greater judicial openness to tort-based climate litigation. Australia has focused more on corporate and consumer law. Both jurisdictions demonstrate the adaptability of private law to climate challenges.

Conclusion

Australasian corporate climate litigation is incrementally reshaping private law. Directors’ duties, disclosure standards, and consumer protection laws are adapting to support climate accountability. While tort law remains uncertain, New Zealand offers a possible model for its development.