Search Results

1. Guide to the MVDT for traders [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...Throughout the hearing, the adjudicator and the assessor will ask you and the applicant questions. The decision After the hearing, the Tribunal will issue a written decision. If you are dissatisfied with a decision given by the MVDT you can appeal to the District Court within 10 working days after notice of the decision is given to you. You should also refer to Schedule 1, clause 16 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 and Part 18 of the District Court Rules 2014 to ensure tha...

2. OIA-121938.pdf [pdf, 780 KB]

   ...responding to part 1 of your request, it might be helpful to note that claims heard by the Tribunal are often complex and take time to prepare, hear and determine. The time taken for cases to be disposed in the Tribunal may be impacted by factors such as appeals in the High Court, judicial reviews, adjournments and settlement discussions. In response to question 1a of your request, the current average time from the filing to disposal by the Tribunal was 718 days as at 30 April 2025...

3. [2025] NZEmpC 224 Al-Bustanji v Corrections Assoc of New Zealand Inc [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...different matters.5 [10] I agree with the respondent that it is appropriate that the present costs application be dealt with now. The proceeding to which the application relates has been adjourned pending the outcome of the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of my judgment declining the respondent’s application for a verification order.6 The hearing scheduled for 30 September and 1 October 2025 was adjourned on that basis. Given that it is now uncertain as to when th...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 45 Miller v Fonterra Co-op Group Ltd [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...included: the problem of defining separate issues with sufficient precision; judges inadvertently disqualifying themselves by expressing views on issues yet to be addressed; duplication in terms of witnesses and preparation time; the risk of multiple appeals, the risk of a further round of disclosure and other interlocutories and amended proceedings; delay in obtaining a fixture for the second hearing and the risk that the same judge might not be available. [18] Mr Drake cited...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 188 ABC01 Ltd (formerly Primary Heart Care Ltd) v Dell [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...orders could be sought from the Authority. This application for leave was filed on 17 September 2012. Mr Rakau’s affidavit in support explains the circumstances in which the challenge was filed in the wrong body (an erroneous assumption that an appeal would be lodged with the body appealed from), but does not address any other elements affecting the Court’s discretion whether to grant leave. [14] Mr Dell opposes the application for leave, citing the company’s track record...

6. CAC20006 v Milne & Bowring [2013] NZREADT 60 [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...MATTER OF charges laid under s.91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20006) AND PENELOPE MILNE AND JOHN BOWRING Defendants READT 60/12 & 61/12 IN THE MATTER OF appeals under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN PENELOPE MILNE AND JOHN BOWRING Appellants AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20006) First Respondent AND JUDITH AND DOUGLAS EADES Secon...

7. APB Ltd v VW LCRO 133 / 2010 (3 August 2011) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...action should be taken. This section confers a discretionary power on the Standards Committee to take no further action on a complaint if, in the opinion of the Standards Committee - there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, and it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise. [2] The Applicant sought a review of that decision, contending...

8. McDonald v Peters [2012] NZWHT Auckland 51 [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...Solutions Ltd, Mr Hislop, Mr Peters and Mr Brown now seek costs under s 91 Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (the Act). Costs are awarded to Mr Peters, Mr Hislop and the company for the reasons set out. [2] Mr McDonald has filed an appeal in relation to the substantive determination. The respondents referred to s 96 of the Act which provides that “an appeal under s 93 does not operate as a stay of the Tribunal’s determination unless a District Court Judge.... o...

9. BORA Films, Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...Canadian Charter, the simple answer in the New Zealand context is that there is no equivalent general "fundamental justice" right in the NZBORA. Of course, proponents of the substantive view could argue that, like Baragwanath J, the Court of Appeal might take a broader interpretation of s 25(c) NZBORA. However, we do not consider that the constitutional status of the NZBORA would support such a progressive interpretation by the Court of Appeal. Of course this does not mean that...

10. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Shalendra Goundar [2017] NZREADT 76 [pdf, 190 KB]

    ...Martin v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 407 [2017] NZREADT 14; Complaints Assessment Committee 408 v Reed [2017] NZREADT 34. requirements for properly supervising and managing a real estate business”, and a fine of $2,500, were upheld on appeal to the Tribunal.21 [34] The events to which that finding related occurred in January 2015, so post-date the transactions in the present case. The later events serve to demonstrate that Mr Goundar’s conduct in the present case was...