3 Aug 2023
PATEL v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2023] NZHC 2047
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 2047
- Court
- High Court
Further evidence was refused because the videos and plans were not fresh, not cogent and could have been produced earlier; the appeal disclosed no reasonably arguable point on the central factual findings (that the leak was disclosed, that advice to vacate was standard and not in bad faith, and that there was no evidence of overcharging) and amounted to an abuse of process and vexatious litigation; failure to serve caused prejudice but did not alone justify strike out; stay of the costs order was refused because the appellant did not show his appeal would be rendered nugatory by payment.