Judge Jane Borthwick adjourned the hearing to consider arguments from both parties before an in-chambers session.
On Monday, QAC counsel Matthew Casey QC contended RPL was seeking to introduce a new element to the hearing - based on a safety case - when the airport's evidence had been prepared on the required separation distance between its main runway and a parallel taxiway.
Judge Borthwick said RPL's case was the airport's risk and airport planning assessments were ''inadequate'' because theyfailed to take into account all elements of the airport operations.
However, Mr Casey contended that was not within the scope of the hearing.
''My understanding, until yesterday, was that we're here to argue about the difference between 93m and 168m ... taxiway separation distance. That's what was made clear at the prehearing conference.''
He said RPL's case seemed to be relying ''almost entirely'' on whether general aviation and helicopters should be grouped within the general aviation precinct, despite the court finding they should be.
''If I'm not facing a challenge to the [taxiway separation], we can now conclude the case just on legal arguments and we can be done.''
QAC's witnesses had prepared their evidence based on separation distances and Mr Casey submitted the hearing should proceed on that basis.
However, Dr Royden Somerville QC, on behalf of RPL, said adjourning the hearing for a ruling and subsequent hearing would be ''an ineffectual process''.
''The issue is still Lot 6 land, whether it should be designated, and now we're into the safety case.''
Risk New Zealand chairman Gerraint Bermingham, who worked with the airport on the introduction of Required Navigation Performance (RNP) technology and its safety case for evening flights, was called to give detailed evidence about modelling done to identify risk for the separation distances.
He said the highly complex tabling factored in multiple variables for Queenstown, including weather, buildings and other aircraft, to determine the probability of a collision with an obstacle.
That work found the probability was 12 times more likely with a separation distance of 93m.
Under cross-examination, Dr Somerville largely focused on airport safety, particularly in regard to runway veer-offs, hazards and obstacles, and safety work done on proposed evening flights.
Regarding the general aviation precinct on Lot 6, Dr Somerville submitted if the facilities were ''not in Lot 6'' there would be no need to apply safety mitigation to the fixed wing aircraft, helicopters and hangars.
''If they were not in Lot 6, likely they wouldn't be obstacles,'' Mr Bermingham replied.
Dr Somerville then queried if there would be room for a parallel taxiway to the north of the airport, prompting Judge Borthwick to interject.
''We are designing an aerodrome. Should we be doing that?'' she said.
