New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Unsatisfactory conduct under s72

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2014

COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 20003 v JHAGROO [2014] NZHC 2077

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2077
Court

High Court

The Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusions: the respondent's failure to make adequate enquiries and his incorrect advice about sufficiency of purchase price amounted to high‑level unsatisfactory conduct under s72 but did not reach the statutory threshold for misconduct under s73; reliance on legal advice that gave a layperson reasonable assurance justified concluding the deduction of commission, while callous, was not disgraceful conduct.
1 Jul 2013

HOUSE AND BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20003) [2013] NZHC 1619

Citation

[2013] NZAR 1148
Court

High Court

Where a client complaint and the agency's responses or omissions occurred while a transaction was at risk pre‑settlement, those acts or omissions are capable of being "real estate agency work" within s4 and thus capable of constituting unsatisfactory conduct under s72; however communications and actions by the customer relations manager that occurred after settlement and registration were not "for the purpose of bringing about a transaction" and therefore not capable of being real estate agency work, so the Tribunal erred as to Mr House but was correct as to Barfoot & Thompson Ltd.