McCallum Bros wnated to take up to 2 million cubic metres more sand from the Pakiri-Mangawhai area. Photo/NZME
Sand-mining company McCallum Brothers Limited has again been ordered to pay $450,000 in legal and expert costs to the Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust — despite winning a High Court appeal that sent the original award back for review.
The costs award stems from McCallum Bros’ (MBL) failed bid last year to secure new consents to extract sand from the Mangawhai–Pākiri area, a proposal strongly opposed by the trust (MKCT) on cultural and environmental grounds.
After dismissing the company’s appeals, the Environment Court initially awarded MKCT $350,000 in legal costs and $100,000 in expert witness expenses.
McCallum Bros, which has mined offshore from Pākiri previously, was seeking to take up to a further two million cubic metres of sand from the area.
The company has appealed to the High Court in respect of all matters arising from the Environment Court’s decisions. However, the parties agreed that the question of costs should be resolved separately, allowing the High Court to address that independently.
In an April judgment, Justice Venning agreed with MBL that the Environment Court erred in law by awarding substantial costs to MKCT without requiring invoices or detailed proof of the expenses incurred. MKCT had claimed nearly $800,000 in total costs but relied on a general affidavit rather than itemised documentation.
Justice Venning said the lack of invoices made it difficult to assess whether the costs were reasonable, especially given the complexity of the case and the indemnity-level compensation sought.
“More was required if affidavit evidence as opposed to invoices was to be acceptable as other proof of costs incurred,” Venning said.
He sent the matter back to the Environment Court for reconsideration.
MKCT submitted detailed invoices, which slightly increased the total claimed costs.
After reviewing the new material and doing a fresh cost analysis, the Environment Court concluded that its original award remained fair and reasonable, albeit a “conservative” contribution to MKCT’s actual costs.
The court found that MKCT’s legal and expert costs were generally supported by the invoices and comparative cost scales, though it noted the lack of precision in the documentation made a full indemnity award inappropriate.
The court also reaffirmed its previous finding that McCallum Bros’ conduct during the proceedings —including advancing arguments without substance, withdrawing key appeals late and filing a strikeout application against MKCT — justified an uplift in costs. It found that MKCT had been forced to incur significant expense to rebut flawed evidence and defend its standing as mana whenua.
Nine parties had originally applied for costs in the Environment Court proceedings, including Auckland Council, the Department of Conservation, Forest and Bird, and several community groups.
McCallum Bros resolved costs with seven of them, reportedly involving at least $100,000, leaving only MKCT and Pākiri local Damon Clapshaw, who was awarded $50,000.
MBL did not appeal the award to Clapshaw.
Meanwhile, in an open letter addressed to the directors of McCallum Brothers Ltd, a coalition of iwi, environmental groups and community organisations has called on the company to withdraw its applications to mine sand from Mangawhai, Pākiri, and Te Akau Bream Bay.
The June 19 letter outlined widespread opposition to the proposed 35-year extraction plans, citing environmental degradation, cultural impacts and breaches of previous consents.
The signatories — including Te Parawhau, Te Patuharakeke, Greenpeace Aotearoa and the NZ Fairy Tern Trust — warned that McCallum Bros will face continued legal, political and public resistance. They highlight past protests, petitions and a recent Waitangi Tribunal claim as evidence of the growing movement against the company’s operations.
The letter said opponents would continue to challenge the company “at every turn” and urged McCallum Bros to “do the right thing” by abandoning its sand-mining ambitions altogether.
McCallum Bros’ remaining appeals, related to the Mangawhai–Pākiri consents, are scheduled to be heard in the High Court in November.
McCallum Bros did not respond to the Northern Advocate’s approaches for comment on these latest matters.
Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, much of which she spent court reporting. She is passionate about covering stories that make a difference.