Summary
- The Mt Messenger Bypass roading project involves plans to straighten approximately 6 kilometres of State Highway 3 on the route between Te Kūiti and New Plymouth.
- One of the options for the new stretch of road was to go through the Pascoe family farm. The Government has made efforts to acquire a portion of the Pascoe land for building the road using the Public Works Act 1981 and compulsory acquisition powers.
- The Pascoes wanted to negotiate with the Minister, rather than negotiate with the company that New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) had contracted.
- The company that NZTA had contacted to contact the Pascoes was called The Property Group (TPG). According to the New Zealand Companies Office, TPG is a New Zealand limited company which is owned by a holding company called TPGH Limited.
- On 18 December 2025 the Supreme Court of New Zealand made a decision in favour of the Pascoe family against the Minister of Land information.
- The court case was an appeal following approximately 9 years of legal disputes around the process being used to take land for the Mt Messenger Bypass Road (Te Ara o Te Ata) project.
- According to the December 2025 Supreme Court decision, the Minister (and/or officials at Land Information New Zealand, LINZ) did not follow the “necessary statutory processes” to give NZTA or TPG the “delegated authority” to negotiate compensation with the Pascoes.
- The Supreme Court conclude in their majority decision (3-to-2) that the Minister “has a statutory duty to make every endeavour to negotiate in good faith”, “Negotiating is not a subsidiary or supporting function”, “Compulsory acquisition is possible only when negotiations have failed”, and “that the Pascoes did not refuse to negotiate with the Minister by refusing to negotiate with TPG”.
- The Supreme Court awarded costs to the Pascoes, allowed the appeal, and ordered the proceeding to be “remitted to the High Court to determine what relief, if any, is appropriate”.
- In November 2025, The Post reported that NZTA was blaming a “multitude of legal challenges” as the project budget increased to $590 million. The project had an estimated cost of $89 million when proposed in 2016.
- The Pascoes have rejected NZTA blaming legal disputes for the project’s cost increases, with Tony Pascoe and supporters (Marie Gibbs and Russell Gibbs) explaining the court cases and experiences in a long-form interviews released in February and March 2026.
Documents from the Supreme Court of New Zealand
Supreme Court Media Release 18 December 2025
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2025/MR-2025-NZSC-195.pdf
Full Supreme Court Decision
PASCOE & ANOR v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2025] NZSC 195 [18 December 2025]
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2025/2025-NZSC-195.pdf
Long-form Interviews
Tony Pascoe, Marie Gibbs, and Russell Gibbs
https://rumble.com/v763qzg-mt-messenger-supreme-court-win-pascoe-family-beats-nzta-land-grab.html?
Mt Messenger Supreme Court Win: Pascoe Family Beats NZTA Land Grab, FreeNZ, 22 February 2026
Tony Pascoe & Marie Gibbs
Landowner & Friend Fighting NZTA Road Project
Supreme Court Victory Against NZTA, RCR, 05 March 2026
Quotes
“I really hope it’s going to help a lot of people in this country because it’s been a decade of unlawful exercise of the Public Works Act against us.”
Tony Pascoe as quoted by Will Johnston in ‘This is huge’: Couple fighting to keep land win Supreme Court appeal, The Post, 19 December 2025
In a judgment released on Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld Tony and Debbie Pascoe’s appeal and ruled that officials did not follow necessary statutory processes for compulsory acquisition of land for public works.
NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) wants to acquire more than 11 hectares of the couple’s Mangapepeke Valley farm near Ahititi for the northern section of the bypass project.
In November, the agency said its revised budget for the project was $590 million.
It claimed $350m of the total budget was the result of a “multitude of legal challenges” that had led to construction delays.
While an NZTA update did not mention any specifics of those challenges, the main issue had been acquiring the Pascoe’s land.
Will Johnston, ‘This is huge’: Couple fighting to keep land win Supreme Court appeal, The Post, 19 December 2025
On Monday, Tony Pascoe said NZTA were the only ones to blame for the hike in costs.
“It’s not our fault,” he said.
“There was even a report put out that it is not a good idea to start this when all the land had not been acquired.”
The couple had fought for nine years to keep their land, a fight he said had destroyed the couple financially, mentally and physically.
“All we ask, we want a home to live in, it’s a family home and an income to carry on farming like we’ve been doing.”
Their stance had been criticised by Land Information Minister Chris Penk, who in March said the couple had caused “unjustified delay” and “unnecessary costs”.
Will Johnston, Landowners reject blame for $350m bypass cost blowout, The Post, 24 November 2025
“The Court unanimously agreed that the Minister’s negotiations function may be subdelegated to an accredited supplier, or to an official within NZTA. Certain statutory requirements would have to be met. The Court also agreed that nothing precludes the Minister or their delegate from engaging a person who is not themselves a delegate to help them perform the negotiations function (at [72]–[73], [94] and [113]).
The majority found, however, that LINZ officials in this case delegated the negotiations function outside the Public Service without following the necessary statutory processes.
That was for two main reasons (at [96]).First, the majority emphasised the distinctive nature of the Minister’s statutory duty to make every endeavour to negotiate in good faith. Negotiating is not a subsidiary or supporting function. The Act expresses an unmistakeable preference that land be acquired for public works by agreement with owners. It is sensitive to loss of owners’ autonomy vis-à-vis their land. Compulsory acquisition is possible only when negotiations have failed. The Act also envisages that negotiation may crystallise both the land requirement and the owners’ entitlement to compensation (at [26]–[28] and [93]).
Second, although LINZ delegates remained responsible both for ensuring that negotiations happened and for the outcome, the evidence suggested that LINZ officials would play no role in the negotiations, had the Pascoes done as LINZ directed and negotiated with TPG.
In particular, the evidence of a meeting between LINZ officials and the Pascoes suggested that LINZ intended that NZTA was TPG’s principal, responsible for the matters that would be the subject of negotiations, that LINZ officials had not supervised that process, and that they meant to play no part in it (at [91] and [97]).
It followed that the Pascoes did not refuse to negotiate with the Minister by refusing to negotiate with TPG. TPG was representing NZTA with respect to negotiations, and neither NZTA nor TPG held the necessary delegated authority (at [98]).”
From the Supreme Court of New Zealand Media Release, TONY JAMES SOFUS PASCOE AND ANOTHER v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION(SC 123/2024) [2025] NZSC 195, 18 December 2025
“NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) contractors were currently constructing the road from the southern and using a gondola to access the centre of the project because the Pascoe’s land had not yet been secured.
In its decision to allow the Pascoes leave to appeal, the Supreme Court said a central question would be to decide whether it was permissible for negotiations prior to the compulsory acquisition of the couple’s land under the Public Works Act to be undertaken by a contractor, rather than by the Minister for Land Information, Chris Penk, or his officials.
It would also examine whether outsourcing of negotiations to NZTA contractor The Property Group was consistent with the minister’s statutory duty “to make every endeavour to negotiate in good faith”.
Tony Pascoe, who owns a farm with his wife on the northern boundary of the project, said the decision to allow the appeal was significant for all landowners.”
Robin Martin, Supreme Court to hear Mt Messenger Public Works Act appeal, RNZ, 09 June 2025
Links to Media
Headline: ‘This is huge’: Couple fighting to keep land win Supreme Court appeal
Authored by: Will Johnston
Published on: 19 December 2025
Published by: The Post
Link: https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360920036/huge-couple-fighting-keep-land-win-supreme-court-appeal
Headline: Landowners reject blame for $350m bypass cost blowout
Authored by: Will Johnston
Published on: 24 November 2025
Published by: The Post
Link: https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360895115/landowners-reject-blame-350m-bypass-cost-blowout
Headline: Supreme Court to hear Mt Messenger Public Works Act appeal
Authored by: Robin Martin
Published on: 09 June 2025
Published by: RNZ
Headline: ‘Mt Messenger Supreme Court Win: Pascoe Family Beats NZTA Land Grab
Published on: 22 February 2026
Published by: The FreeNZ Editorial
Link: https://freenz.substack.com/p/mt-messenger-supreme-court-win-pascoe
