Pascoe v Minister for Land Information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2024-443-36

[2025] NZHC 1782

UNDER

the Public Works Act 1981 and Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN

TONY JAMES SOFUS PASCOE AND DEBBIE ANN PASCOE

Appellants

AND

MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION

Respondent

Hearing:

15-17 July and 12 August 2024 (further memoranda received after the hearing, most recently dated 18 December 2024)

Appearances:

Appellants in person (assisted by M Gibbs with R Gibbs in attendance) (appearing via VMR on 12 August 2024)

R L Roff, J M Prebble and E S Harris for Respondent

Judgment:

2 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[Objection Appeal]

PASCOE AND PASCOE v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2025] NZHC 1782 [2 July 2025]

Table of Contents

Para Nos

Introduction  [1]

Background  [5]

Related proceedings  [42]

The regime for compulsory acquisition under the Public Works Act          [49] The Environment Court Objection Decision  [68] The issues  [69]

The objectives of the Minister for the Project  [70]

Consideration of alternatives  [72]

Good faith negotiations and fair, sound and reasonably necessary                [80]

Approach to appeal  [87]

The appeal  [94]

First ground of appeal—no natural justice in the Environment Court [101] Consideration of “inequality of arms”  [102] Consideration of closing submissions and memoranda from the Pascoes [120] Conclusion—first ground of appeal not made out  [140]

Second ground of appeal—Environment Court erred in its conclusion

on alternative routes for the Project  [141]

The parties’ positions  [142]
Discussion  [146]

Conclusion—second ground of appeal not made out  [155]

Third and fourth grounds of appeal—Environment Court failed to consider errors by the Minister and LINZ in their decision-making

under s 18  [156]

Scope of appeal under these grounds  [160]

Challenge to good faith negotiations  [161]
 The appeal is not an opportunity to relitigate factual matters  [162]
 Authority to negotiate  [166]
 Effect of relevant time period for negotiations  [168]
 Remaining matters  [172]

Limitations on negotiation because of inadequate information  [175]

Land Requirement Plans  [177]

Surveys of the land  [184]
 Valuations  [196]

Were there good faith negotiations in the relevant period?  [212]
Conclusion —third and fourth grounds of appeal not made out                   [216]

Fifth ground of appeal—Environment Court erred in assessing material provided to the Minister for their decision-making under s 23(1)  [217] The parties’ positions  [217]

Discussion  [219]
Conclusion —fifth ground of appeal not made out  [226]

Further matter raised in written submissions—Environment Court

erred in ascertaining the Minister's objectives  [227]
Conclusion and result  [234]
Costs  [236]

Introduction

[1]    Mr and Mrs Pascoe (the Pascoes) appeal against an Environment Court decision that dismissed their objection 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 (the EC Objection Decision).1 The Pascoes say the Environment Court made errors in the decision such that it should be quashed.

[2]    The Minister opposes the appeal on the basis…