A landowner's bid for a hearing over $1.75 million in legal costs from Queenstown Airport has been rejected by the Environment Court.
The huge sum represents 60% of the money spent by Remarkables Park Ltd (RPL) during a hard-fought seven-year court battle.
Queenstown Airport Corporation (QAC) ultimately won the case over redesignating 16ha of land along its southern boundary, owned by RPL, for airport expansion.
QAC was given the right to compulsorily purchase the land if the parties could not reach an agreement.
RPL, the resort's major developer responsible for much of Frankton's expansion to the southeast, has always maintained that is unfair.
It had land-swap agreements dating back to the 1990s and early 2000s with Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC), the airport's major shareholder, in which QLDC promised not to require the land for airport purposes.
RPL filed the costs application some 16 months after the final determination of the High Court.
The Environment Court had to determine whether to use its discretion to allow an extension of time in which costs could be filed, thereby enabling the application to be heard.
RPL lawyers argued the delay in filing was only four months - from when RPL's bid to have the whole case reheard was rejected - which was needed to collate invoices.
In Judge Jane Borthwick's December 20 decision on the costs and timeframe extension, she detailed RPL's position.
It contended it would be ''disproportionate'' to decline to hear the costs application due to the delay and given the scale and history of the proceedings; and there's a public interest - a landowner should be able to challenge issues of public law without incurring significant costs.
But QAC gave a strong response, saying RPL has ''consistently sought to lengthen the time taken to conclude the litigation'' and has been obstructive to the point of filing an application in 2017 to rehear the whole thing.
''Having decided the application on a different ground, QAC points out that the Environment Court has indicated that it would have struck out the application for rehearing on the basis that it was an abuse of process.''
QAC contended it will incur significant costs to respond to the costs application.
The High Court had reserved costs, but indicated costs were not encouraged.
Judge Borthwick summarised ''various negative aspects of the parties' conduct'' throughout the proceedings''.
She ultimately rejected RPL's positions, including that it was ''disproportionate''.
''Indeed, these considerations go to the timely and efficient disposition of costs where costs are sought.''
The rehearing application was ''irrelevant'' and the 16-month delay was ''excessive''.
While there was ''considerable public interest'' in the case itself, there was not in the issue of legal costs.
''We decline to exercise our discretion to extend the time for RPL to file an application for costs.''
