This article is a survey of recent developments in climate litigation and judicial responses to it. Ultimately the article concludes that, despite some limitations, the cases show that the courts retain an important role in addressing climate change issues. The article also discusses the cases brought by youth and indigenous peoples and the extent to which such cases ask the courts to expand the horizons of conventional legal categories and concepts.

Precursor terrorism offences, which criminalise activity occurring at the pre-inchoate stage on the theory that this will prevent the subsequent commission of terrorist acts, have been a prominent feature of post-9/11 counterterrorism law. However, in late 2021, the New Zealand Parliament enacted the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Act 2021 (CTLA), a substantial reform which included several new precursor terrorism offences. The purpose of this article is to explain how this transpired, and to examine the precursor offences created by the CTLA. The article first situates the CTLA against the background of New Zealand's counterterrorism law after 11 September 2001 and before the Christchurch mosques attack of 15 March 2019. Secondly, it outlines the changes implemented by the CTLA — with the focus being on the new precursor terrorism offences, particularly the planning or preparation offence. Thirdly, based on the experience in comparative jurisdictions with similar precursor terrorism offences, it discusses the issues that are likely to arise with criminalising precursor conduct. While the drafters of the CTLA were clearly aware of these issues and mitigated some of them to a degree, others are likely the unavoidable consequence of creating precursor terrorism offences, especially a general offence of planning or preparation.

New Zealanders are increasingly shopping online, purchasing our goods and services directly from overseas sellers. The question of the territorial scope of New Zealand consumer protection law is therefore of growing importance. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) contains no express indication as to its cross-border effect. There is much disagreement about the proper approach for determining the cross-border scope of statutes. In the 2022 case of Body Corporate Number DPS91535v3A Composites GmbH, the High Court, as part of a jurisdiction challenge, decided that the CGA does not have extra-territorial effect. This article argues that it is time for Parliament to add a choice-of-law rule into the CGA to expressly indicate the territorial scope of the Act. There are strong reasons for this rule to provide that the CGA extends, with some exceptions, to a cross-border dispute between a consumer resident in New Zealand and a foreign seller.