114 items matching your search terms
...parties, without any new evidence. The Court of Appeal in Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Authority affirmed the 1 Refer email from Dr Simons dated 27.03.19 principles set out by the Tribunal in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority, holding that full oral hearings are only appropriate in “exceptional circumstances”.2 The Tribunal may accept further evidence on appeal if justified. 2. The standard test for admission of...
...generally proceed on the record of evidence that the Committee considered and additional evidence is not admitted at the appeal stage. The Court of Appeal in Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Authority confirmed the principles set out by the Tribunal in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority2 stating that on appeal, full oral hearings of the evidence are only appropriate in “exceptional circumstances”3. But the Tribunal may in appropriate cases exceptionally accept further ev...
...Second Defendant Hearing: 24 April 2015 and by written submissions filed on 28 April and 1 May 2015 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: A Lloyd and M Pascariu, counsel for Premier Events Group Limited J Eichelbaum, counsel for Malcolm James Beattie, Anthony Joseph Regan and Patricia Panapa Judgment: 14 May 2015 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT (NO 6) OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] Premier Events Group Limited (PEGL) has applied for two...
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 30 READT 008/15 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN JOHN EICHELBAUM of Auckland, Barrister Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 303) First respondent AND ROSALYN WHITE of Rahuikiri Road, Pakiri Beach, Auckland, Real Estate Agent Second respondent MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Mr G Denle...
...the appeal). The Tribunal also considers whether allowing the evidence to be submitted would require further evidence from other parties and cross-examination.5 4 Nottingham v The Real Estate Agents Authority [2017] NZCA 1, at [81]. 5 See Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) [2016] NZREADT 3, at [49] and [52]; and Wheeler v the Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 1901) [2020] NZREADT 6, at [8]– [10]. [14] In its decision in Eichelbaum, the Tribunal agreed tha...
...Secondly, it is relevant to record that the appellant, Ms Rahim, has the responsibility of persuading the Tribunal that the Committee was wrong to decide to take no further action on her complaint. [19] As the Tribunal said in its decision in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303),3 appeal hearings generally proceed on the record of the material that was before the Complaints Assessment Committee and the submissions of the parties. The Tribunal may accept further evi...
...following submissions concerning the principles which are applicable in cases where it is proposed that additional evidence which was not before the CAC, should be adduced on appeal: 2.1 The Tribunal will be familiar with the principles in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority.5 Appeal hearings will generally proceed on the record of evidence that was before the Committee and submissions of the parties, without any new evidence. The Tribunal may accept further evide...
...re-hearing of the material that was before the Committee. That is, the Tribunal hears submissions by or on behalf of the parties, and reconsiders the evidence and other material that was provided to the Committee. However, in its decision in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303), the Tribunal accepted that the Tribunal may give a party to an appeal leave to submit evidence to the Tribunal considering an appeal, which was not before the Complaints Assessment Committee...
...generally proceed on the record of evidence that was before the Committee and submissions of the parties, without any new evidence. The Court of Appeal in Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Authority affirmed the principles set out by the Tribunal in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority, holding that full oral hearings are only appropriate in “exceptional circumstances”. The Tribunal may accept further evidence on appeal if justified. (b) The standard test for admission...
...First Defendant AND ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN Second Defendant AND PATRICIA PANAPA Third Defendant Hearing: 23 March 2012 (in Chambers) (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Aaron Lloyd and Vonda Hodgson, counsel for plaintiffs John Eichelbaum, counsel for defendants Judgment: 23 March 2012 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT NO 2 OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN [1] There are two matters for decision today in respect of the trial of liability (but not damages) issues between the...