Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Employment Relations Act 2000

Institutions - Miscellaneous provisions

219: Validation of informal proceedings, etc

You could also call this:

“This section explains how mistakes in legal processes can be fixed or forgiven by a court or authority.”

If someone doesn’t do something on time or doesn’t follow the correct process as required by this law, they can ask the court or the Authority for help. The court or Authority can decide to give more time for the task to be completed or they can approve the task even if it wasn’t done properly.

However, the court can’t make these kinds of decisions about cases that are already being handled by other courts. Only the court where the case is being heard can make these decisions.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM61438.

Topics:

Crime and justice > Courts and legal help

218: Appeal to Court of Appeal in respect of order on application for review, or

“You can ask a higher court to check if a decision about your case was fair.”

220: Documents under seal and certain signatures to be judicially noticed, or

“ The law says you can trust official papers with special seals or signatures without needing extra proof. ”

Part 10 Institutions
Miscellaneous provisions

219Validation of informal proceedings, etc

If anything which is required or authorised to be done by this Act is not done within the time allowed, or is done informally, the court, or the Authority, as the case may be, may in its discretion, on the application of any person interested, make an order extending the time within which the thing may be done, or validating the thing so informally done.
Nothing in this section authorises the court to make any such order in respect of judicial proceedings then already instituted in any court other than the court.

Compare

1991 No 22 s 138