22 Mar 2021
HONG v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 5 [2021] NZCA 85
- Citation
- [2021] NZCA 85
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Further evidence application refused as not fresh and not an opportunity to relitigate factual findings; none of the proposed questions met the high s 254 threshold because they were essentially factual or not of sufficient legal importance; Tribunal and High Court applied correct legal tests (fitness to practise, standard of proof) and did not breach Evidence Act s 50; compensation for emotional harm was a permissible form of loss under s 156 and no reasonably arguable question of law arose.