Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal

The appeal in Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal arose from a decision by the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, which had earlier been remitted back to the Tribunal for re-hearing. The appellants sought to appeal the Tribunal's ruling on an application to admit further evidence. The appellants, Dermot Gregory Nottingham, Philip Raymond Nottingham, and Robert Earle McKinney, along with Whistle Blowers, sought to appeal the Tribunal's decision to the High Court of New Zealand. The Tribunal and Martin Honey, a real estate agent, were the respondents. The primary issue was whether the appeal constituted an abuse of the court's process.

The court examined the newly introduced High Court Rules 2016, specifically Rules 5.35A, 5.35B, and 5.35C, which allow the Registrar to refer proceedings believed to be an abuse of process to a judge for consideration. The court considered whether these rules applied to the appeal under Part 20 of the High Court Rules. The court concluded that the rules were intended to cover civil appeals and thus applied to the present appeal. The court found that the appeal was manifestly unfair and brought the administration of justice into disrepute, as it contained irrelevant, vexatious, and scandalous material, including personal attacks and defamatory statements.

The court struck out the proceeding, stating that it would be manifestly unfair for the respondents to have to respond to the appeal in its current form. The decision was in line with the purpose of the new rules to prevent misuse of court processes. The appellants were informed of their right to appeal against the decision.