Legal Research
Cases
Pascoe v Environment Court

Pascoe v Environment Court

Case [2025] NZHC 1784 2 July 2025

Administrative Decisions

Natural Justice

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

Environmental Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2024-443-8

[2025] NZHC 1784

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

TONY JAMES SOFUS PASCOE AND DEBBIE ANN PASCOE

Applicants

AND

THE ENVIRONMENT COURT

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION

Second Respondent

Hearing: 15-17 July 2024 (further memoranda received after the hearing, most recently dated 18 December 2024)

Appearances:

Applicants in person (assisted by M Gibbs with R Gibbs in attendance)

S R Hiha for First Respondent (appearance excused) K F Gaskell and E S Harris for Second Respondent

Judgment:

2 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[Judicial Review — Environment Court]

PASCOE AND PASCOE v THE ENVIRONMENT COURT [2025] NZHC 1784 [2 July 2025]

Table of Contents

Para Nos

Introduction [1]

Background [6]

Reviewability of the Environment Court’s exercise of statutory powers [32]

The application for judicial review [42]

Preliminary matters [45]

Approach to discussion of causes of action [48]

Environment Court’s refusal to grant adjournments and failure to provide written reasons [49]

First and eighth causes of action [49]
Discussion [51]

Remaining causes of action [58]

Content of Minutes dated 21, 22 and 23 November 2023 [59]
Allegations in relation to each Minute [62]

Environment Court’s directions and statements about the role of counsel for the Pascoes [67]

Second, fourth, fifth and seventh causes of action [67]
Discussion [69]

Environment Court’s directions about attendance of support persons at

mediation [77]

Third cause of action [77]

Discussion [79]

Environment Court’s statement about outside interference with counsel [83]

Sixth cause of action [83]

Discussion [86]

Environment Court’s direction about persons entitled to communicate with the Court [89]

Ninth cause of action [89]
Discussion [91]

Conclusion and result [95]

Costs [97]

Introduction

[1] Mr and Mrs Pascoe (the Pascoes) objected to the compulsory acquisition of part of their land by the Minister for Land Information (the Minister) for a roading project, known as Te Ara o Te Ata | Mt Messenger Bypass (the Project), to improve the highway connection between Taranaki and Waikato under the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA). The Environment Court inquired into the objection and determined that the taking of the Pascoes’ land was fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the Minister’s objectives.1

[2] The Pascoes apply to judicially review procedural matters and statements made by the Environment Court in the lead up to the hearing of their objection. They seek declarations that the Environment Court acted unfairly and outside its jurisdiction, and failed to observe the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the principles of natural justice. They also seek orders and directions requiring the Environment Court to revisit their objection to the taking of their land. They do so under nine causes of action, alleging in broad terms that the Environment Court did not give them a fair hearing in the hearing of their objection.

[3]The first respondent, the Environment Court, abides the decision of the Court.

[4] The second respondent, the Minister, says…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Pascoe v Environment Court

Details

AGLC: Pascoe v Environment Court [2025] NZHC 1784
Case: [2025] NZHC 1784
Decision Date: 2 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tony James Sofus Pascoe and Debbie Ann Pascoe (the Pascoes) sought to judicially review the Environment Court’s procedural decisions in relation to the case management of their objection to the compulsory acquisition of their land for a roading project. The Environment Court had determined that the taking of the Pascoes’ land was fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the Minister for Land Information (the Minister). The Pascoes alleged that the Environment Court did not give them a fair hearing. They sought declarations and orders, including that the Environment Court act fairly and not outside its jurisdiction. The Minister submitted that the application for judicial review should be dismissed because the matters under challenge are procedural or administrative in nature and not amenable to review.

McQueen J held that no decision that is reviewable has been identified by the Pascoes and/or there is no error in the Environment Court’s exercise of its statutory powers. The Court found that the declining of requests for adjournments and the failure to provide written reasons did not breach the Pascoes’ right to natural justice. The Court also found that the Environment Court’s directions about the attendance of support persons at mediation, its statement about outside interference with counsel and its direction about who was entitled to communicate with the Court did not amount to decisions materially affecting the Pascoes’ rights or interests. The Court accordingly dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court invited the parties to agree on costs and to propose a timetable for the determination of costs in this matter and the other related proceedings.

Orders