Pascoe v Minister for Land Information - [2025] NZSC 114

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 81/2025
[2025] NZSC 114

BETWEEN	TONY JAMES SOFUS PASCOE AND DEBBIE ANN PASCOE Applicants
AND	MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person R L Roff, J M Prebble and E S Harris for Respondent
Judgment:	10 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to file reply submissions is dismissed.

B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
CThe applicants must pay the respondent one set of costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Application for leave to appeal

The applicants seek leave to appeal directly from a decision of the High Court which dismissed an appeal against the Environment Court’s dismissal of the applicants’ objection to the compulsory acquisition of part of their land for a roading project.[1] That appeal was limited to questions of law.[2]
[1]Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2025] NZHC 1782 (McQueen J). See Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2024] NZEnvC 101.
[2]Public Works Act 1981, s 24(14); and Resource Management Act 1991, s 299.
This ‍Court has, in a separate proceeding, granted the applicants leave to appeal on the issue whether negotiations prior to the compulsory acquisition of land for essential works, under s 18 of the Public Works Act 1981, may be undertaken by an accredited contractor rather than by the Minister personally (or an official of Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand with delegated authority by the Minister).[3]
[3]Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2025] NZSC 54.
The applicants essentially submit that the lawfulness of the subsequent acquisition can only be properly determined once this Court decides the issue upon which it has granted leave, as that may in turn affect the validity of the negotiations conducted prior to the acquisition. There is otherwise a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The applicants also identify various other issues with the decision-making process which led to the acquisition, and they say these issues are of general and public importance.
The possibility that the outcome of the appeal in which the Court has granted leave may affect the lawfulness of the subsequent acquisition cannot be ruled out. However, the substance of the proposed appeal is a challenge to the substantive merits of the decision to acquire the land. To the extent the application raises any arguable question of law, we are not persuaded there are exceptional circumstances which justify this Court hearing the appeal without the benefit of any views of the Court of Appeal.[4]
[4]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 75(b).
The applicants sought leave to file reply submissions, but nothing in them alters our conclusions. Those submissions can be raised in the Court of Appeal. Leave ‍to file them is declined. We also decline the request for an oral leave hearing.

Application for urgency

The respondent has asked that this Court urgently decide the leave application by directing a shortened timetable…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pascoe v Minister for Land Information and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZSC 114
Decision Date: 10 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dealt with an application from Tony James Sofus Pascoe and Debbie Ann Pascoe, who sought leave to appeal a decision of the High Court, which had dismissed an appeal against the Environment Court’s dismissal of their objection to the compulsory acquisition of part of their land for a roading project. The applicants' appeal was limited to questions of law and pertained to the compulsory acquisition of land for essential works under the Public Works Act 1981. The applicants argued that the lawfulness of the subsequent acquisition could only be properly determined once the Supreme Court decided whether negotiations for such acquisitions may be undertaken by an accredited contractor rather than by the Minister personally. The applicants also submitted that there was a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the issues were of general and public importance.

The Court considered the applicants' argument that the outcome of the appeal, for which leave had already been granted on another issue, may affect the lawfulness of the subsequent acquisition. However, the Court found that the proposed appeal was a challenge to the substantive merits of the decision to acquire the land. The Court concluded that the application did not raise any arguable question of law that would justify the Supreme Court hearing the appeal without the benefit of any views of the Court of Appeal. The Court also declined the request for an oral leave hearing and dismissed the application for urgency, finding that the determination of the leave application would not affect the formal position and that the applicants could still seek the leave of the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to file reply submissions and the application for leave to appeal. The Court ordered that the applicants must pay the respondent one set of costs of $2,500. The Court's decision clarified that the applicants could raise their arguments in the Court of Appeal, and the need for urgency was not established as the determination of the leave application would not affect the formal position.

Orders