Smith v Attorney-General

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA404/2022
[2022] NZCA 637

BETWEEN	MICHAEL JOHN SMITH Appellant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Court:	Miller and Brown JJ
Counsel:	D M Salmon KC, M Heard and S J Humphrey for Appellant J M Prebble, K F Gaskell and D Ranchhod for Respondent J D Every-Palmer KC and J S Cooper KC for Climate Action NZ Inc
Judgment: (On the papers)	19 December 2022 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to intervene is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc (LCANZI) has applied for leave to intervene in this appeal.
We accept that LCANZI has an interest in the subject matter of the appeal and expertise in climate change law.
However, it is not apparent that LCANZI will assist the Court sufficiently to justify the burden on court resources that invariably results from intervention. There is force in the Attorney-General’s submission that foreshadowed legal content does not ordinarily warrant intervention where (as in this case) the appellant is well able to advance the same arguments. LCANZI is a public interest organisation and its resources presumably are available to the appellant.
The Human Rights Commission has been given leave to intervene, but it is in a different position. It has a statutory responsibility under s 5 of the Human Rights Act 1993[1] and it brings a broader perspective and assistance with the relationship between climate change and internationally protected human rights.
[1]Human Rights Act 1993, s 5(2)(j).
The application for leave to intervene is declined.

Solicitors:
Lee Salmon Long, Auckland for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
Gilbert Walker, Auckland for Climate Action NZ Inc

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Michael John Smith against the Attorney-General. The central dispute in the case involves the denial of Smith's application for leave to intervene in a matter related to climate change law. Climate Action New Zealand Inc (LCANZI) also sought to intervene in the appeal, arguing that they possess relevant expertise and have a vested interest in the outcome of the case. The court was tasked with determining whether LCANZI's intervention would sufficiently aid the court's understanding of the issues at hand to warrant the additional burden on court resources.

The key legal issues before the court included whether LCANZI had a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the appeal and whether their intervention would provide sufficient benefit to justify the additional burden on court resources. The court also considered whether the appellant, Michael John Smith, was capable of adequately advancing the arguments related to climate change law without LCANZI's intervention. Furthermore, the court needed to evaluate the relevance of the Human Rights Commission's intervention in the case and how it might provide a broader perspective on the relationship between climate change and internationally protected human rights.

In delivering the judgment, Miller J held that while LCANZI did have an interest in the subject matter and expertise in climate change law, it was not evident that their intervention would sufficiently assist the court. The court acknowledged the force in the Attorney-General's argument that the appellant was well capable of advancing the same arguments related to climate change law. Additionally, the court noted that LCANZI, as a public interest organisation, had resources presumably available to the appellant. The court also considered the Human Rights Commission's intervention, which it deemed appropriate due to its statutory responsibility under the Human Rights Act 1993 and its ability to provide a broader perspective on the relationship between climate change and internationally protected human rights.

The Court of Appeal declined the application for leave to intervene by LCANZI, emphasising that the appellant was well equipped to advance the arguments related to climate change law. The court allowed the Human Rights Commission to intervene, given its statutory responsibility and potential to provide valuable insights into the relationship between climate change and internationally protected human rights.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established