Search Results

Search results for eichelbaum.

121 items matching your search terms

  1. [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...

  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. [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...

  4. George Lancaster v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 491), John Lantz & Stephanie Kelland [2017] NZREADT 77 [pdf, 209 KB]

    ...Assessment Committee’s decision is a re-hearing; 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. [17] 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 evid...

  5. [2021] NZREADT 41 - London v Cartwright (3 August 2021) [pdf, 294 KB]

    ...[e] whether he had been involved in other sales in the development; and [f] what he said to the complainants about the status of the offer for the property in place at the time he showed the property to them. 1 See the Tribunal’s decision in Eichelbaum v 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. 2 See Nottingham, at [81]. [18] Mr Matsis stated in the application tha...

  6. [2012] NZEmpC 77 Premier Events Group and Anor v Beattie and Ors [pdf, 70 KB]

    ...Hearing: 11 May 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: 11 May 2012 ORAL INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT NO 4 OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] There is a further application to prohibit the pre...

  7. [2015] NZEmpC 9 Premier Events Groups Ltd v Beattie [pdf, 55 KB]

    ...RECEIVERSHIP) Second Defendant Hearing: By memoranda of submissions filed on 19, 20 and 22 December 2014 and 30 January 2015 Appearances: AJ Lloyd and V Hodgson, counsel for Premier Events Group Limited J Eichelbaum, counsel for Malcolm James Beattie, Anthony Joseph Regan and Patricia Panapa Judgment: 9 February 2015 SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] Messrs Beattie and O’Regan and Ms Panapa have appli...

  10. [2024] NZEmpC 174 A Ifraz Investments Ltd v Jamal [pdf, 202 KB]

    ...Trotting Conference [1984] 1 NZLR 8 (CA) at 10; and Philip A Joseph Joseph on Constitutional and Administrative Law (5th ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2021) at 902 and fn 604. [16] In Lovie v Medical Assurance Society New Zealand Ltd, Eichelbaum J, in dealing with the application of the rule, stated:4 ... 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....