Ruling sees no exceptional circumstances to justify proceeding sans appeal court’s views
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has dismissed the minister for land information’s application asserting urgency and alleging the necessity for immediate access to a portion of the applicants’ land to avoid affecting the 2025–26 construction season.
In Pascoe v Minister for Land Information, [2025] NZSC 114, the applicants objected to the compulsory acquisition of a portion of their land for a roading project. The Environment Court rejected their objection.
The applicants filed an appeal limited to legal questions. New Zealand’s High Court dismissed their appeal.
In a separate proceeding, the Supreme Court gave the applicants leave to appeal on the issue of whether an accredited contractor – instead of the minister or an official of Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand with minister-delegated authority – could negotiate before the land’s compulsory acquisition for essential works under s 18 of the Public Works Act 1981.
Skipping over New Zealand’s Court of Appeal, the applicants applied for leave to appeal the High Court ruling directly to the Supreme Court.
The applicants alleged that properly determining the lawfulness of the subsequent acquisition should come after the Supreme Court had resolved the issue upon which it granted leave, which might impact the pre-acquisition negotiations’ lawfulness.
The applicants asserted a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice and other issues of general and public importance regarding the decision-making process resulting in the acquisition.
The applicants also applied for leave to file reply submissions.
On the other hand, the respondent minister filed an application for urgency. The minister asked the Supreme Court to urgently resolve the leave application through a shortened timetable for submissions and promptly decide the application on the written submissions.
The minister claimed that it needed access by the end of September to minimise additional financial and social costs for taxpayers.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the applicants’ application for leave to appeal or file reply submissions, denied their request for an oral leave hearing, ordered them to pay the minister one set of costs of $2,500, and dismissed the minister’s application for urgency.
Regarding the applicants’ application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court acknowledged the possibility that the outcome of the appeal in which the Supreme Court granted leave might impact the subsequent acquisition’s legality.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the proposed appeal’s substance challenged the substantive merits of the decision to acquire the land.
To the extent that the application alleged an arguable legal question, the Supreme Court held that the application asserted no exceptional circumstances justifying hearing the appeal without the benefit of the appeal court’s perspective.
The Supreme Court added that the applicants could raise their reply submissions, which included nothing that would change its conclusions, before the appeal court.
Regarding the respondent minister’s application for urgency, the Supreme Court found the correctness of the minister’s submission ambiguous. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence failed to prove a need for urgency because resolving the leave application would not affect the formal position.
