New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency agreements

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2022

SOFT TECHNOLOGY JR LIMITED v JONES LANG LASALLE LIMITED [2022] NZCA 353

Citation

[2022] NZCA 353
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 126 requires a written agency agreement, signed by the client and the agent and processed as prescribed, to be completed before the agent undertakes the work for which commission is claimed; JLL did not have a signed agreement in place before undertaking the work and therefore had no enforceable entitlement to commission, and alternatively JLL's prolonged failure to provide the signed copy within 48 hours was not inadvertence beyond its control so relief under s126(2)–(3) was not available.
5 Apr 2022

SOFT TECHNOLOGY JR LIMITED v JONES LANG LASALLE LIMITED [2022] NZCA 115

Citation

[2022] NZCA 115
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to intervene was granted because the Authority, as the statutory regulator, has a significant interest in the proper interpretation of s 126 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 and the point of interpretation is significant to the statutory scheme; conditions and deadlines for written submissions were imposed and costs reserved.
22 Nov 2021

OPES PARTNERS NEW ZEALAND LTD v SDOGENERAL LTD [2021] NZHC 3147

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3147
Court

High Court

The Judge found there was a real possibility of a claim and that it was impracticable for Opes to properly formulate its claim without access to specified documents likely in Unlocked's control; accordingly a limited order under r 8.20 was necessary and granted, but narrowed to exclude documents relating to Unlocked's unrelated clients and subject to confidentiality protections and time limits (April 2017–June 2021).
28 Sept 2021

JONES LANG LASALLE LTD v SOFT TECHNOLOGY JR LTD [2021] NZHC 2538

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2538
Court

High Court

The agency agreement's wide definition of 'rent' includes turnover rent; the parties' memorandum, correspondence and the ATEED lease show a conditional second lease existed contemporaneously with the ATEED lease such that the agent's introduction falls within the contract's sunset provisions; clause 13 alternatively entitles the agent to commission on additional space; Jones Lang's failure to deliver a signed copy was inadvertent and on the facts recovery of the full commission (plus GST and contractual interest) is fair and reasonable under s126, so relief reducing or denying commission is n…
13 Aug 2019

HA v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY & ANOR [2019] NZHC 1956

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1956
Court

High Court

The appellant's firm, unqualified advice that the prior sole agency could be cancelled effectively neutralised any warning required by r 9.11; the mandated warning is substantive and must be unqualified to fulfil its consumer protection purpose; any procedural omission in identifying the specific rule did not cause unfairness or was curable; therefore breach of r 9.11 occurred and unsatisfactory conduct under s72 was established.
23 Oct 2014

ROBINSON v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20006) [2014] NZHC 2613

Citation

(2014) 15 NZCPR 670
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed: the heads of agreement expressly authorised each party to appoint their own agent so an agent appointed by one party could list and market the property on that party's instructions; marketing in those circumstances did not breach r9.15 or amount to unsatisfactory conduct by the branch manager, so the Tribunal's finding of unsatisfactory conduct and the $2,000 order were set aside.
16 Apr 2014

CBRE (AGENCY) LIMITED v MARTELLI MCKADAM SOLICITORS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 805

Citation

[2014] NZHC 805
Court

High Court

There was an enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant (via its solicitors) altering deposit arrangements, and an implied term existed that the defendant would keep the deposit available to permit payment of the plaintiff's commission from those funds; accordingly summary judgment awarded to plaintiff for $35,024.06 plus interest.
10 Aug 2012

GOUNDEN v LOVEGROVE REALTY LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-001414

Citation

openlaw-b1d55ebb_d386_4a4c_aea7_60d20743d76e.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 10 did not impose personal liability on Mr Gounden: the property was owned by a limited liability company when the listing authority was executed, the trust limb of clause 10 applies only where a trustee executes the agreement, and a director who did not sign the authority cannot be made personally liable under that clause; accordingly Lovegrove cannot recover its commission from Mr Gounden under the listing authority.
2 Dec 2009

DEVEREUX HOWE-SMITH REALTY LIMITED V PIPER HC AK CIV-2009-404-3162

Citation

openlaw-f20158c6_c736_478d_8d3a_55a5acd26266.pdf
Court

High Court

The District Court erred by concluding the written agency could be construed without regard to the factual matrix; the agency contract was ambiguous on its face and the contemporaneous brochure and email exchanges raised material factual issues about the parties' objective intentions that could not be resolved on summary judgment under the strict test of Westpac/Jones and s62; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the appeal is allowed.