Legal Research
Cases
Pascoe v Environment Court

Pascoe v Environment Court

Case [2024] NZHC 876 22 April 2024

Legitimate Expectation

Environmental Impact

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

[2024] NZHC 876

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

TONY JAMES SOFUS PASCOE AND DEBBIE ANN PASCOE

Applicants

AND

ENVIRONMENT COURT

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION

Second Respondent

CIV-2024-485-48

UNDER

the Public Works Act 1981 and the Resource Management Act 1991

IN THE MATTER OF

An appeal under Section 299 of the Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN

TONY JAMES SOFUS PASCOE AND DEBBIE ANN PASCOE

Appellants

AND

MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION

Respondent

Hearing: 18 April 2024

Appearances:

Mr and Mrs Pascoe in person, supported by Ms Gibbs A J Vincent for First Respondent in CIV-2024-443-8 K F Gaskell and E S Harris for Second Respondent in

CIV-2024-443-8 and for Respondent in CIV-2024-485-048

Judgment:

22 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

PASCOE v ENVIRONMENT COURT [2024] NZHC 876 [22 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] This is a hearing of three applications made in two different proceedings commenced in this Court, both relating to an Environment Court proceeding (ENV-2021-AKL-116) to determine whether it is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for the Minister for Land Information (the Minister), despite Mr and Mrs Pascoe’s objection under s 24 of the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA), to acquire parts of their land for the purpose of Te Ara o Te Ata: Mt Messenger Bypass Project (the Project).

[2] The Environment Court’s substantive hearing took place in November and December 2023, and closing submissions were filed by the parties on 2 February 2024. The Pascoes’ submissions were filed under protest, without prejudice to their position in the two proceedings now before this Court. The Environment Court reserved its decision. If not stayed, I understand the Environment Court would aim to issue its decision around the end of this month, or shortly afterwards.

[3]The three applications for my determination are:

(a)In a judicial review proceeding (CIV-2024-443-8)1 challenging a series of related decisions, findings, and directions of the Environment Court in the lead-up to the substantive hearing, Mr and Mrs Pascoe have applied for an interim order under s 15 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 (JRPA) staying the Environment Court proceeding. In summary, they say these matters prejudiced their right to a fair hearing before the Environment Court.

(b)In an appeal (CIV-2024-485-48)2 of the Environment Court’s decision to refuse a stay,3 Mr and Mrs Pascoe have applied to stay the Environment Court proceeding under s 24 of the PWA pending the determination of the stay appeal.

1      This proceeding was filed on 16 January 2024.
2      This appeal was filed on 29 January 2024.
3      The Environment Court’s decision was made on 19 January 2024.

(c)The Minister has sought orders staying the judicial review proceeding and the appeal proceeding, to enable the Environment Court to complete its determination of the proceeding under s 24 of the PWA.

[4] By way of wider context, there are also other proceedings on foot concerning the Minister’s earlier decision…

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 [2024] NZHC 876
Case: [2024] NZHC 876
Decision Date: 22 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Pascoe v Environment Court, Tony James Sofus Pascoe and Debbie Ann Pascoe sought to challenge a series of decisions made by the Environment Court in relation to an acquisition of their land for the Te Ara o Te Ata: Mt Messenger Bypass Project. The applicants sought interim relief under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, a stay pending appeal under the Public Works Act 1981, and the Minister for Land Information sought to stay the judicial review and appeal proceedings. The Court was required to determine whether it was necessary to stay the Environment Court proceedings, given the statutory framework and the public interest in the prompt resolution of the matter. The Court considered the statutory provisions governing the Environment Court's role, the nature of interlocutory appeals, and the principles governing the grant of stays in judicial review and appeal proceedings. The Court concluded that the statutory requirements and public interest considerations favoured allowing the Environment Court to issue its decision first, and that the applicants' applications for stays were not appropriate. The Court declined the applications by Mr and Mrs Pascoe and granted orders staying the judicial review and appeal proceedings until the Environment Court issued its substantive decision. The Court also directed the parties to file memoranda on costs if they could not agree on the issue of costs.

This case highlights the importance of following statutory frameworks and the principles governing interlocutory appeals and stays in judicial review and appeal proceedings. The Court's decision emphasises the need to balance the rights of the parties with the public interest in the prompt resolution of disputes. The case also underscores the importance of allowing specialist bodies, such as the Environment Court, to complete their inquiries before related judicial review proceedings proceed. The Court's decision is likely to have implications for future cases involving similar statutory frameworks and public interest considerations.

Orders