Pascoe v Minister for Land Information - [2024] NZHC 1169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2024-443-8

[2024] NZHC 1169

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: On the papers

Counsel:

Applicants in person

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-2024-485-48

Judgment:

10 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

PASCOE v ENVIRONMENT COURT [2024] NZHC 1169 [10 May 2024]

[1] On 22 April 2024, I delivered a judgment in favour of the Minister for Land Information (Minister), declining the applications of Mr and Mrs Pascoe seeking interim relief and a stay in proceedings CIV-2024-443-8 and CIV-2024-485-48. Both those proceedings in turn relate to an Environment Court proceeding (EMV-2021-AKL-116).

[2] In accordance with my timetable directions, the parties filed memoranda on the issue of costs and those have been referred to me for determination.

Party submissions

[3] The Minister seeks costs and disbursements in the total sum of $8,556.13. This consists of four steps: filing documents in opposition (x 2) to each application by the Pascoes, preparing submissions and the bundle for hearing, and appearing at the hearing.

[4] The Pascoes have filed a memorandum addressing post-judgment procedural and substantive issues (which are not for my determination), but also asking that my directions as to costs “be amended and the party to receive costs reversed”.

Legal principles

[5] The Court has a general discretion to award costs under r 14.1 of the High Court Rules 2016, but r 14.2 provides a clear statement of the principles to be applied in most cases.

(a)Under r 14.2(1)(a), the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds.

(b)Under r 14.2(1)(b), an award of costs should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding. For those purposes, r 14.3 provides for three categories of proceeding. Category 2 applies to proceedings of average complexity requiring counsel of skill and experience considered average in the High Court. Rule 14.4 provides that the

appropriate daily recovery rates are specified in sch 2: $2,390 for Category 2 proceedings.

(c)Rule 14.2(1)(c) provides that costs should generally be assessed by applying the appropriate daily recovery rate to the time considered reasonable for each step reasonably required in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application. For those purposes, r 14.5 specifies that a reasonable time is set out in sch 3 for each step, or a reasonable time should be determined by analogy. This is done by reference to whether the step…

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: [2024] NZHC 1169
Decision Date: 10 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pascoe v Minister for Land Information involved Tony James Sofus Pascoe and Debbie Ann Pascoe, who were applicants in two proceedings. They sought interim relief and a stay in the proceedings CIV-2024-443-8 and CIV-2024-485-48, which relate to an Environment Court proceeding (EMV-2021-AKL-116). The Minister for Land Information, as the second respondent, was opposing the applications. The applicants were seeking to amend the directions regarding costs and reverse the party to receive costs. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister for Land Information should be awarded costs for the proceedings and the stay application, in accordance with the principles of costs outlined in the High Court Rules 2016. The court considered the Minister’s successful opposition to the applications and the nature of the proceedings as of average complexity. The Minister’s calculations for costs were based on Category 2, Band B, which was deemed appropriate. The court concluded that there were no grounds for departing from the scale costs or reversing the costs order. The court awarded costs and disbursements to the Minister in the sum of $8,556.13, as calculated. This judgment ensures that the prevailing party in the interlocutory applications receives appropriate costs in accordance with the established legal principles.

Orders