Search Results

1. [2017] NZEmpC 118 - Nathan v Broadspectrum (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 380 KB]

   ...starting point should be the Guideline especially given its stated purpose. [20] The Guideline draws on the costs scale in the High Court Rules and observations about the use of a scale in that Court are pertinent. In Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eichelbaum the purpose of costs rules in the High Court were discussed by the Court of Appeal.10 [21] In that case the Court observed that a central aim of the High Court costs regime is to deliver to the successful party approximately t...

2. Wouldes v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409) & Ors [2017] NZREADT 36 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...set out in paragraph [4][b][i]–[iii] of the Tribunal’s Minute (2), dated 18 April 2017, as follows: 1 Martin v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 407) [2016] NZREADT 67, at [98]. 2 See Eichelbaum v The Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZREADT 3. [i] whether the Committee was correct to find that Mr Tremain did not fail to disclose information about defects in the complex; [ii] whether the Committee was correct to...

3. [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...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. [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...

8. [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...

9. 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...

10. [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...