Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 79 Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...Hearing: 30 April 2012 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Aaron Lloyd and Vonda Hodgson, counsel for Premier Events Group Limited David Neutze and Natalie Lord, counsel for BA Partners Limited (in liquidation and receivership) John Eichelbaum, counsel for Malcolm James Beattie, Anthony Joseph Regan and Patricia Panapa Judgment: 1 May 2012 Reasons: 14 May 2012 REASONS FOR ORAL INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT NO 3 OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN [1] These are the reasons...

2. [2020] NZEmpC 96 Innovative Landscapes (2015) Ltd v Popkin [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...acknowledged that the Employment Court had developed an approach to costs that deviated from the ‘standard’ approach which applied in other Courts.7 [7] The ‘standard’ approach, as the Court later explained in Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eichelbaum, included “costs actually incurred,” as comprising legal costs billed by a lawyer to their client for services rendered. With reference to r 14 of the High Court Rules, costs were taken to mean “actual costs”, separate f...

3. [2021] NZREADT 05 - Ogilvie (22 January 2021) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...Ogilvie also submitted that Ms Abel should identify the relationship she 2 In contrast to an appeal against the exercise of a discretion. 3 See Austin Nicholls & Co Ltd v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141 (SC). 4 See Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) [2016] NZREADT 3, at [49] and [52]. 5 See Eichelbaum at [35]–[36] and Eade v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 1903) [2020] NZREADT 05, at [47]. had with Ms W, and how she used tha...

4. [2019] NZREADT 50 - Hu v CAC 416 & Yeung (14 November 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...vendor of the property. Such an explanation of course displaces any need for the involvement of the Licensee as part of the on-sale to Purchaser 2. Conclusion on proposed additional evidence [49] The Tribunal by analogy with cases such as Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority5 ought not to cooperate with the proposed course of action unless, amongst other things, there is reason to suppose that summonsing the two witnesses and requiring them to give oral evidence is likely...

5. [2020] NZREADT 07 - Deng - Ruling (25 February 2020) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...re-hearing of the material that was before the Committee. That is, the Tribunal considers the evidence and other material that was provided to the Committee, and hears submissions by or on behalf of the parties. [10] However, in its decision in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303), the Tribunal accepted that it may give a party to an appeal leave to submit evidence to the Tribunal that was not before the Committee, if the Tribunal considers that it is just t...

6. [2022] NZEnvC 093 Waimea Plains Landscape Preservation Society Inc v Gore District Council [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...self-represented litigant is not entitled to recover costs other than disbursements.15 However, an exception lies where the litigant is a self-represented lawyer. While the Court of Appeal held to overturn the exception in Joint Action Funding v Eichelbaum,16 the Supreme Court in McGuire v Secretary for Justice more recently affirmed that a litigant in person who is also a lawyer can recover costs.17 Evaluation [18] Having reviewed the submissions of parties, I consider that an...

7. [2017] NZEmpC 118 - Nathan v Broadspectrum (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 380 KB]

   ...starting point should be the Guideline especially given its stated purpose. [20] The Guideline draws on the costs scale in the High Court Rules and observations about the use of a scale in that Court are pertinent. In Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eichelbaum the purpose of costs rules in the High Court were discussed by the Court of Appeal.10 [21] In that case the Court observed that a central aim of the High Court costs regime is to deliver to the successful party approximately t...

8. Kristina-Lorraine Brook v Complaints Assessment Committee 403 & Jason Hynes [2017] NZREADT 48 [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...Assessment Committee’s decision is a rehearing; that is, the appeal is determined by reference only to the material that was before the Committee, and the submissions made by or on behalf of the parties to the appeal. [25] As the Tribunal said in Eichelbaum v The Real Estate Agents Authority, the Tribunal may accept further evidence, or material that was not put before the Committee, if it considers the evidence or material will assist it in determining the appeal. Such...

9. LG v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 32 (27 May 2013) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...difficult exercise of judgment, to be made by the tribunal as an informed and expert body on all the facts of the case. [30] As a Full Court observed in McDonald v Canterbury District Law Society (High Court, Wellington, M 215/87, 10 August 1989, Eichelbaum CJ, Heron and Ellis JJ) at p 12: Even in the absence of dishonesty, striking-off will be appropriate where there has been a serious breach of a solicitor’s fundamental duties to his client. [31] It is important to bear in mind t...

10. Wouldes v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409) & Ors [2017] NZREADT 36 [pdf, 111 KB]

    ...set out in paragraph [4][b][i]–[iii] of the Tribunal’s Minute (2), dated 18 April 2017, as follows: 1 Martin v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 407) [2016] NZREADT 67, at [98]. 2 See Eichelbaum v The Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZREADT 3. [i] whether the Committee was correct to find that Mr Tremain did not fail to disclose information about defects in the complex; [ii] whether the Committee was correct to...