Auckland’s million-dollar soil mountain: Court rules on who must pay
Tuesday, 26 May 2026
It took nearly $1 million to flatten a sprawling soil mountain in East Auckland. Now a judge has decided who will pay - and it’s the company that ran the site and its director.
The Environment Court has ordered them to cover the bulk of the clean-up costs after finding they were responsible for most of the material piled there.
In a decision released on Friday, the court ruled Eco Earth and its sole director, Gareth Williams, that they must pay $697,359.96 to the site’s landlord, NZ New Oak Property Ltd.
The sum represents 75% of the cost of urgent remediation works because Eco Earth was alleged to have been responsible for 75% of the dirt.
Read more:
The million-dollar dirt mound: who should pay to clean it up?
Auckland’s skies being taken over by ‘the Jetsons’, councillors hear
Flying a helicopter not the same as riding a bike, court tells richlisters
The liability is joint and several, meaning both the company and Williams can be pursued for the full amount.
The ruling is the latest chapter in long-running dispute over a massive pile of fill — at least 15m high — on Smales Rd in East Tamaki, which Auckland Council said posed serious risks to neighbouring businesses.
At its peak, the mound spilled beyond the site boundaries and threatened nearby properties, including a Mobil service station, raising concerns about slope failure, flooding and interference with landfill infrastructure.
Competing versions of the “mountain”
New Oak, the site’s owner, argued that when Eco Earth took over the lease in mid-2023 there was already 11,000m³ of fill on the site - but that this grew to about 44,000m³ by the time the company left in 2024.
Its case relied on engineering modelling, a private investigator, drone imagery and site surveys, which it said showed a significant increase in both the volume and footprint of the stockpile.
Eco Earth and Williams disputed that, arguing the site already contained far more material - closer to 39,800m³ - before they moved in. Williams also argued the volumes alleged by New Oak would have required thousands of truck movements not supported by inspection records or other evidence.
He also challenged the clean-up costs, arguing they were inflated and based on unreliable trucking records.
Court prefered landlord’s evidence
Judge Melinda Dickey rejected Williams’ account, finding there was no credible evidence to support his estimate of the starting volume.
Instead, Dickey preferred the evidence of New Oak’s engineering expert who had modelling, aerial imagery and drone footage to track the growth of the stockpile over time.
That evidence was “clear” and remained consistent under cross-examination, the judge said.
The court also accepted evidence that material was being deposited on the site during Eco Earth’s tenancy, including observations from the private investigator and engineering site visits.
Williams had argued he could not confirm what was being dumped - suggesting it could have been metal rather than soil - but acknowledged he was not present when the observations were made.
The court found it was “quite possible” Eco Earth deposited the volume of fill alleged by New Oak and noted Williams had not provided persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Personal liability upheld
A key issue was whether Williams could be held personally liable given Eco Earth is in liquidation.
He argued he acted only as a company director and should not be personally responsible.
The court disagreed, finding he was directly involved in the site’s operations.
“We conclude that Mr Williams was the company’s mind and hands and that he was personally involved either by direction or action in what occurred on the site,” the judgment said.
The court also noted that a person’s financial position is not relevant when deciding whether to make such an order.
Costs largely upheld
New Oak had sought to recover 75% of the costs it incurred carrying out urgent “interim works” required under earlier court orders to stabilise the site.
Those works cost about $929,813 in total and removed 7700 cubic metres of material.
The court accepted those costs were “actual and reasonable” and necessary to address the environmental risks posed by the stockpile.
It found Eco Earth and Williams had failed to comply with planning rules and enforcement notices and that their actions contributed to the adverse environmental effects.
Under the Resource Management Act, that meant they could be required to reimburse costs incurred by another party in remedying those effects.
What happens next
Eco Earth is in liquidation, and it remains unclear whether the full amount ordered will be recovered.
Williams had earlier told the court he had no money to pay and was on legal aid, but the judge noted that financial means are not a factor in determining liability.
The decision leaves both the company and its director exposed to enforcement of the nearly $700,000 order, while further remediation of the site may still be required.
Eco Earth and Gareth Williams have been approached for comment through their lawyer about whether they will appeal. They have not responded.