This morning, on Friday 19 December 2025, the Supreme Court released its judgment in Climate Clinic Aotearoa Incorporated v Minister of Energy and Resources [2025] NZSC 197.

“The appeal was dismissed on the facts, but the Court accepted several important aspects of the appellant’s legal arguments - setting an important precedent moving forward”, says Jessica Palairet, Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action.

In 2021, a group of law students from Victoria University of Wellington challenged decisions by then-Minister of Energy and Resources, Megan Woods, to grant petroleum exploration permits in Taranaki. After facing pushback from the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court heard the case earlier this year in 2025.

“The Court held that climate change is a mandatory relevant consideration when deciding whether to offer petroleum exploration permits for allocation by public tender (s 24 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991). The Court also held that, depending on context, the climate considerations in s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 may be mandatory”, says Palairet.

“The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the facts, but the Court unanimously agreed with the appellants on most of their key legal arguments - their interpretation of the purpose of the statute, the fact that climate is mandatory relevant consideration when Ministers are making decisions on whether to offer petroleum exploration permits for tender, the role of s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act, and Treaty principles”, says Palairet.

“Ultimately, when you delve into what the judgment says, this can fairly be described as a win for the students and for the climate. The Court has clarified the interpretation of key provisions in the Crown Minerals Act and Climate Change Response Act, which will guide future permitting decisions moving forward.”

“The judgment sets out a climate-positive framework for how decision-makers must approach climate change and Treaty principles under the Crown Minerals Act.”

“The judgment reflects orthodox judicial review principles - its focus is on how decisions are made, rather than strictly the result. It does not, for instance, prevent the Government from offering new petroleum exploration permits for allocation by tender - but it sets out guardrails and matters that must be considered when making those decisions.”

“Significantly, the Court was very clear that petroleum extraction and consumption are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in NZ and internationally; that climate change and its effects are an issue of “pressing concern for New Zealand and its well-being in both the near and long-term”; and that New Zealand has entered into “binding commitments which require a drastic reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions”. This was all critical context underpinning the Court’s conclusion that climate change needed to be considered under s 24.”

Congratulations to all those involved in this case, especially those students from Climate Clinic Aotearoa, and their lawyers, Dr James Every-Palmer KC (LCANZI co-founder and board member) and Lee Salmon Long.

You can read Lawyers for Climate Action’s explainer of the case here.

© Scoop Media