Pascoe v Minister for Land Information - [2025] NZHC 3241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2021-443-048 CIV-2024-443-008 CIV-2024-443-036 CIV-2024-485-048 [2025] NZHC 3241

UNDERthe Public Works Act 1981 and a second notice of intention to take land from T J S and D A Pascoe

BETWEENTONY JAMES SOFUS PASCOE AND DEBBIE ANN PASCOE
Applicants/Appellants

AND MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION
Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers

Counsel: Applicants/Appellants self-represented
(assisted by M Gibbs with R Gibbs in attendance)
R L Roff, J M Prebble, K Gaskell and E Harris for Respondent

Judgment: 29 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[Costs]

[1] On 2 July 2025, this Court delivered judgments in four matters which were set down to be heard together (the proceedings).1

1 Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2025] NZHC 1782 (Objection Appeal CIV-2024-443- 36); Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2025] NZHC 1783 (Original JR Application CIV-2021-443-48); Pascoe v Environment Court [2025] NZHC 1784 (New JR Application CIV-2024-443-8); and Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2025] NZHC 1785 (Stay Appeal CIV-2024-485-48).

PASCOE AND PASCOE v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2025] NZHC 3241 [29 October 2025]

[2] The parties have been unable to agree on costs and have filed submissions as directed by the Court. I now determine costs on the papers.

The Minister’s position

[3] The Minister successfully defended the proceedings and submits that on an ordinary application of the principles relevant to the determination of costs, the Minister is entitled to costs. The Minister says that there are no grounds to diverge from an award of costs on the ordinary basis.

[4] The Minister seeks costs of $126,192 on a category 2B basis and disbursements of $1,488.11, as particularised in a schedule attached to the Minister’s memorandum as to costs.

[5] The quantum has been calculated by way of reference to the steps taken from the outset of the proceedings, excluding steps on which costs have already been awarded:

(a)Costs have been claimed for steps taken in the Original JR Application (CIV-2021-443-48) in relation to hearings before Grice J (28 September 2022) and Isac J (2 October 2023) for which costs have not yet been determined. The Minister was successful in both matters.2 Justice Grice directed costs in relation to the
28 September 2022 hearing be determined following judgment in the substantive proceeding.3 Costs in relation to the 2 October 2023 hearing before Isac J were also unable to be agreed between the parties and were similarly directed to be determined following judgment in the substantive proceeding.4

(b)Costs have not been claimed in relation to the interim relief matter

2      Pascoe v Minister [for] Land Information [2022] NZHC 3173; and Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2023] NZHC 2844.
3      Pascoe v Minister [for] Land Information [2023] NZHC 795 at [11].
4      Pascoe v Minister for Land Information HC New Plymouth CIV-2021-443-48, 13 December 2024 (Minute of McQueen J).

heard by O’Gorman J, as they have already been determined.5

(c)Steps which relate to actions taken…

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] NZHC 3241
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pascoe v Minister for Land Information involved Tony James Sofus Pascoe and Debbie Ann Pascoe (the Pascoes) challenging the compulsory acquisition of their land by the Minister for Land Information under the Public Works Act 1981. The Court was tasked with determining the appropriate costs to be awarded following the Pascoes' unsuccessful appeals and judicial review applications. The Pascoes argued against any costs being awarded against them, citing the public interest in the matter and their financial hardship. They also raised concerns about the quantum of costs claimed by the Minister, suggesting that New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) was responsible for the litigation costs. The Minister, on the other hand, sought an award of costs on the ordinary basis, arguing that the Pascoes' impecuniosity and the complexity of the legal and factual scheme did not warrant a departure from the usual costs regime.

The Court held that the usual principle of costs following the event should apply, and the Minister, having been successful in all proceedings, was entitled to costs. The Court rejected the Pascoes' arguments that costs should not be determined until all appeals were resolved, noting that there was no presumption to defer costs determination in such cases. The Court also dismissed the Pascoes' claims of impecuniosity and inequality of arms as grounds to avoid costs, emphasizing that unsuccessful litigants in person are liable to pay costs to represented parties. The Court found that the proceedings were not of such public interest and merit to warrant a refusal or reduction of costs under rule 14.7(e) of the High Court Rules 2016. Additionally, the Court determined that the quantum of costs claimed by the Minister was reasonable and properly substantiated, rejecting the Pascoes' concerns about the lack of invoices.

The Court concluded that the Pascoes must pay the Minister's scale costs for the proceedings on a 2B basis of $126,192 and disbursements of $1,488.11. The Court also found that the allowance for second counsel was appropriate given the complexity of the case and the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Pascoes.

Orders