PRASAD v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 416) [2020] NZHC 335

PRASAD v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 416) [2020] NZHC 335

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's factual findings that Prasad failed to disclose significant road‑widening information to all potential purchasers and colleagues and deliberately falsified diary and transaction records to evade investigation; those findings established s73(b) misconduct and s73(a) disgraceful...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 335
Parties
Appellant and Respondent (cross Appeal): Indra Prasad; Respondent and Appellant (cross Appeal): Real Estate Agents Authority (Complaints Assessment Committee 416)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 116 Real Estate Agents Act 2008 / Hearing and Judgment (rehearing on Appeal)
Outcome
Appellant's factual appeal dismissed; Committee's appeal against penalty allowed; Tribunal's penalty quashed; Indra Prasad's real estate licence cancelled.
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disgraceful Conduct, Disclosure Obligations, Dishonesty and Falsification of Records, Penalty (licence Cancellation Vs Suspension), Evidence and Credibility
Real Estate Law Professional Discipline Administrative Law Misconduct Disgraceful Conduct Disclosure Obligations Dishonesty and Falsification of Records Penalty (licence Cancellation Vs Suspension) +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Indra Prasad

Appellant and Respondent (cross Appeal)

Real Estate Agents Authority (Complaints Assessment Committee 416)

Respondent and Appellant (cross Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 116 Real Estate Agents Act 2008 / Hearing and Judgment (rehearing on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether licensee owed duty to disclose road-widening to all open‑home attendees and potential purchasers
  2. 2 Whether diary entries and Lister Transaction Report were falsified to conceal non‑disclosure
  3. 3 Whether conduct met thresholds for s73(b) (seriously incompetent/negligent) and s73(a) (disgraceful conduct)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's factual findings that Prasad failed to disclose significant road‑widening information to all potential purchasers and colleagues and deliberately falsified diary and transaction records to evade investigation; those findings established s73(b) misconduct and s73(a) disgraceful conduct by dishonesty; given the deliberate falsification, lack of insight and absence of remorse cancellation of Prasad's licence was the only appropriate penalty after assessing mitigation and public interest.

Court Disposition

Appellant's factual appeal dismissed; Committee's appeal against penalty allowed; Tribunal's penalty quashed; Indra Prasad's real estate licence cancelled.

Orders

  • Appellant's (Indra Prasad) appeal dismissed on the issue of liability
  • Real Estate Agents Authority's appeal against penalty allowed