Grace v Minister of Land Information [2014]
Facts:
Mrs Patricia Grace, the objector, owned a block of land that had Maori freehold status. On 6 June 2013, the Minister of Land Information, the respondent, signed a Notice of Intention to take a section of Grace’s land to enable the construction of the Kapiti Expressway. Grace then filed a Notice of Objection to the Environment Court. In an attempt to protect her land, she applied to the Maori Land Court to set aside her land as a Maori reservation. The Maori Land Court decided her case first. The Court recommended that Grace’s land become a Maori Reservation.
Issues:
There were two main issues before the Environment Court. The first was whether the Minister had given adequate consideration …show more content…
The respondent submitted that there were alternative routes, but the cost would have been an additional $16 million. Yet, the Court found that it was possible that a minor realignment of the proposed road could avoid intersecting with Grace’s land. The cost of this alternation would be only $2.3 million. The court acknowledged that this was not an insignificant cost, but reasoned that it would be somewhat offset by not having to pay compensation for Grace’s land.
para 24. para …show more content…
He was enthusiastic about development and donated parts of his land for various developments, including a school and a railway. Mrs Grace suggested that ‘it would behove this generation to recognise this generosity and not take land once owned by him, unless absolutely necessary to do so.’
The Court recognised that her desire to retain her land was based more on cultural and historic connection than on monetary value. Retaining her land is something that Grace feels so strongly about, she voluntarily surrendered the land to become a Maori Reservation in order to protect it for future generations. The Court then decided that it would not be ‘fair’ to acquire the land, due to its cultural significance and the availability of an alternative route.
On deciding whether or not it was reasonably necessary to acquire the land, the court referred back to the first issue; the consideration of other routes. Due to the fact that other routes existed that did not require the accession of Grace’s land, the Court decided that it would not be reasonably necessary to take the land in order to meet the Ministers
Facts:
Mrs Patricia Grace, the objector, owned a block of land that had Maori freehold status. On 6 June 2013, the Minister of Land Information, the respondent, signed a Notice of Intention to take a section of Grace’s land to enable the construction of the Kapiti Expressway. Grace then filed a Notice of Objection to the Environment Court. In an attempt to protect her land, she applied to the Maori Land Court to set aside her land as a Maori reservation. The Maori Land Court decided her case first. The Court recommended that Grace’s land become a Maori Reservation.
Issues:
There were two main issues before the Environment Court. The first was whether the Minister had given adequate consideration …show more content…
The respondent submitted that there were alternative routes, but the cost would have been an additional $16 million. Yet, the Court found that it was possible that a minor realignment of the proposed road could avoid intersecting with Grace’s land. The cost of this alternation would be only $2.3 million. The court acknowledged that this was not an insignificant cost, but reasoned that it would be somewhat offset by not having to pay compensation for Grace’s land.
para 24. para …show more content…
He was enthusiastic about development and donated parts of his land for various developments, including a school and a railway. Mrs Grace suggested that ‘it would behove this generation to recognise this generosity and not take land once owned by him, unless absolutely necessary to do so.’
The Court recognised that her desire to retain her land was based more on cultural and historic connection than on monetary value. Retaining her land is something that Grace feels so strongly about, she voluntarily surrendered the land to become a Maori Reservation in order to protect it for future generations. The Court then decided that it would not be ‘fair’ to acquire the land, due to its cultural significance and the availability of an alternative route.
On deciding whether or not it was reasonably necessary to acquire the land, the court referred back to the first issue; the consideration of other routes. Due to the fact that other routes existed that did not require the accession of Grace’s land, the Court decided that it would not be reasonably necessary to take the land in order to meet the Ministers