Fish and Game costs action

The High Court has been asked to determine costs against Fish and Game New Zealand after its failed legal bid to get access for its members to Crown pastoral lease land.

The fresh legal action follows a failure by the three parties involved in the initial action, the High Country Accord, Land Information New Zealand (Linz) and Fish and Game, to agree on acceptable costs.

There has been speculation Fish and Game could face a six-figure bill.

The two respondents in the court action, the High Country Accord representing pastoral lessees and their landlord, Linz, both confirmed yesterday they were in the process of filing applications for costs with the High Court.

Neither would reveal how much was sought, but Accord chairman Jonathan Wallis said defending the case cost the farmer body $250,000.

"I guess our application will be based on the level of costs to us and what is likely to be returned to us by a judge."

Linz would not reveal how much it sought, saying it was up to the High Court to determine Fish and Game's liability.

"The Crown is in the process of filing an application for costs with the High Court after direct discussions with Fish and Game were unsuccessful," Linz said in a statement.

Fish and Game based its case on a thesis by Lincoln University Fulbright Scholar Ann Brower, who concluded pastoral lessees had rights to pasturage only and not exclusive possession. An earlier Crown Law Office opinion said pastoral lessees had exclusive possession.

Mr Wallis hoped the damaged relationship between farmers and the Fish and Game executive caused by the court case could be repaired.

"It seems to me that with hunters and fishermen we have a good relationship. Whether or not the [Fish and Game] executive see it the same way, I'm not sure."

Fish and Game said recently the case had cost it $60,000, or the equivalent of 50c for every fishing and hunting licence-holder.

The effect of any additional costs was speculation and depended on what the High Court granted.