Search Results

1. [2021] NZREADT 22 - Jenkins v The Real Estate Agents Authority, Roberts & Tai Rakena (14 May 2021) [pdf, 316 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. [37] 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 so...

2. 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...

3. Kozlov v The Real Estate Agents Authority CAC (416) NZREADT 21 [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...[d], and [e] above were before the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not need to consider those matters, as they are in the bundle of documents relevant to the appeal. Leave is not required. 5 See Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) [2016] NZREADT 3, and Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Authority [2017] NZCA 1. Correspondence between Mr Kozlov and his solicitor Submissions [11] Mr Kozlov’s correspondence with hi...

4. [2020] NZREADT 22 - Catley & Boyle - Ruling (4) (26 May 2020) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...[26] As Mr and Mrs Flanagan do not consent to the appeal being allowed and the matter remitted back to the Committee, the Tribunal’s consideration of their appeal cannot be abbreviated. 7 See Eichelbaum v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) [2016] NZREADT 3, affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Authority [2017] NZCA 1. 8 Baker v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 413) [2018] NZREADT 64. 9...

5. Takimoana - Te Tii (Waitangi) B3 Ahu Whenua Trust (2014) 90 Taitokerau MB 67 (90 TTK 67) [pdf, 335 KB]

   90 Taitokerau MB 67 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20140003345 A20140003346 UNDER Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Tii (Waitangi) B3 Ahu Whenua Trust BETWEEN RICHARD BOYD TAKIMOANA MEREAWAROA DAVIES Applicants A20140003363 UNDER Section 18(1)(a), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Lot 18 DP 61631 BETWEEN MEREAWAROA DAVIES App

6. [2006] NZEmpC AC 70/06 Skinner & Anor v Stayinfront Inc [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...the determination of a preliminary issue are not within a narrow compass and are not readily isolated from the facts relevant to other issues in the case, there is a danger in having separate hearings. [25] He relied on Innes v Ewing4 in which Eichelbaum J found that except in rare cases it is unlikely to be appropriate to make orders which have the effect that substantial questions of fact are isolated and dealt with separately before trial. Case for the defendant [26] Mr Town...

7. Alice Wouters v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 412) & Thomas Richadson [2017] NZREADT 60 [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...documents in category (1). [24] Category (7) comprises, Mr Richardson states, “documents included in the complainants submission”. As such, they were considered by the Committee. If Mr 4 See Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) [2016] NZREADT 13, at [55]. 5 See, for example, paragraph 1.2 of the Committee’s decision. Richardson wishes to make submissions concerning these documents, then the proper place to...

8. Samuelu v Aasa [2014] NZIACDT 89 (16 September 2014) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...fine and 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 HC Wellington M 215/87, 10 August 1989 per 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...

9. [2019] NZEnvC 091 Jacks Point Residential No. 2 Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...been codified in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 at 6.6(d). Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eiche/baum (2017] NZCA 249. Legal submissions in response to costs memorandum for JPG dated 1 April 2019 at (8] referring to Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eichelbaum [2017] NZCA 249 at (43]-[58]. 7 tend to pay more attention to their clients' affairs than their own. So some of the fees are properly claimable. [21] As for Mr Brabant's submissions that Mr and Mrs Geddes are the suc...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 129 VKU v PHZ (Judgment of Judge M S King, 27 June 2025) [pdf, 178 KB]

    ...[19] Although the provision does not explicitly permit the Court to strike out proceedings for delay on its own initiative, power to do so arises under the Court’s inherent powers.8 [20] In Lovie v Medical Assurance Society New Zealand Ltd, Eichelbaum J, in dealing with the application of the rule, stated:9 ... the applicant must show that the plaintiff has been guilty of inordinate delay, that such delay is inexcusable, and that it has seriously prejudiced the defendant. Alth...