Search Results

1. Wellington Standards Committee v Laglolago [2015] NZLCDT 43 [pdf, 27 KB]

   ...[7] Mr Beck submitted it was speculative to conclude that, even if more forcefully managed, that the Fs would have been dissuaded from litigation, or would not have suffered a similar outcome. [8] Mr Beck relied strongly on the recent decision of Eichelbaum1 to submit that suspension was not an automatic consequence of the negligence finding. In that case, despite two findings of misconduct and one of unsatisfactory conduct, the practitioner was not suspended. Mr Beck also referre...

2. [2020] NZREADT 11 - Catley & Boyle - Ruling (3) (10 March 2020) [pdf, 190 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 to do...

3. [2024] NZREADT 45 – Parmar v REAA, KB & LB (20 November 2024) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...Authority filed submissions on 21 August 2024. [21] With regard to the new evidence filed by Mr Parmar, the Committee submitted that the test to produce new evidence on appeal is well-established. In support of its submission, the Committee cited Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) for the proposition that, ordinarily, the applicant “must satisfy” the Tribunal that:8 (a) The evidence could not have been obtained by the party with reasonable diligence and provide...

4. [2012] NZEmpC 26 Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...JOSEPH REGAN Second Defendant AND PATRICIA PANAPA Third Defendant Hearing: 15 February 2012 (in Chambers) (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Erin Davies and Cathryn Curran-Tietjens, counsel for second plaintiff in support John Eichelbaum, counsel for defendants to oppose Judgment: 21 February 2012 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN [1] This interlocutory judgment decides the second plaintiff’s application to strike out several of the secon...

5. Lam v The Real Estate Agents Authority NZREADT 15 [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...Those principles are correctly described in the submissions of the first respondent’s counsel in the following terms: Legal principles regarding admission of further evidence on appeal 2.1 The Tribunal will be familiar with the principles in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority.6 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 evidenc...

6. [2020] NZREADT 05 - Eade - Ruling (21 February 2020) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...re-hearing of the material that was before the Committee. That is, the Tribunal hears submissions by or on behalf of the parties, and considers the evidence and other material that was provided to the Committee. [9] 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 to do s...

7. Chaudhary v Real Estate Agents Authority, Rajan & Devi [2018] NZREADT 2 [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...allowed in a Tribunal hearing is a question for the Tribunal to decide. [5] The Authority is neutral as to whether or not the second respondents ought to be called but opposes the application to call Mr Gooch. [6] In the decision of the Tribunal in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZREADT 31 the Tribunal held there was no automatic right to call evidence at the appeal but such evidence could be called where there are exceptional circumstances. [7] As set out in E...

8. [2022] NZREADT 9 BT ST v REAA (12 May 2022) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...re-hearing of the material that was before the Committee. That is, the Tribunal hears submissions by or on behalf of the parties, and considers the evidence and other material that was provided to the Committee. [39] However, in its decision in Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority 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 to do so.8 An applic...

9. [2022] NZREADT 10 – HD v REAA and LD (18 May 2022) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...Agents Act 2008, s 111(3); Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Authority [2017] NZCA 1 at [81] & [83]. 3 Real Estate Agents Act 2008, ss 105(2), 107, 107A; Nottingham, above n 2. 4 Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 105(1). 5 Nottingham, above n 2; Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) [2016] NZREADT 3 at [35]–[36], [48]–[49]; Moseley v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 1907) [2021] NZREADT 19 at [59]–[60]; London v Cartwright [2021] NZREADT 41 at [14]. 5...

10. [2012] NZEmpC 71 Premier Events Group Ltd and Ors v Beatttie and Ors [pdf, 67 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 ORAL INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT NO 3 OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN [1] These are my decisions on a series of interlocutory p...