Jenner Real Estate Limited v Real Estate Agents Authority [2012] NZHC 56 (3 February 2012)

High Court of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Jenner Real Estate Limited v Real Estate Agents Authority [2012] NZHC 56 (3 February 2012)

Last Updated: 13 February 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2011-404-007893 [2012] NZHC 56

UNDER the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

BETWEEN JENNER REAL ESTATE LIMITED Appellant

AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY

First Respondent

AND PENELOPE JANE RICHWHITE Second Respondent

Hearing: 3 February 2012

Counsel: P J Napier for the Appellant

M J Hodge for the First Respondent

P C Creagh for the Second Respondent

Judgment: 3 February 2012

_{JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J}

Distribution:

P Napier: [e-mail]

M Hodge: [e-mail]

P Creagh: [e-mail]

JENNER REAL ESTATE LIMITED V THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY HC AK CIV 2011-404-

007893 3 February 2012

[1] The appellant appeals a decision of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal at Auckland dated 22 November 2011, and referred to as decision number [2011] NZREADT 35.

[2] This matter was due to be called before me in the civil appeals case management list on Tuesday, 7 February 2012. In the event, I have received memoranda from all parties, and I convened a telephone conference to deal with one or two outstanding issues. The appeal can be allowed by consent.

[3] The Tribunal’s decision was given in respect of an appeal against a decision of a Complaints Assessment Committee of the first respondent, in relation to a complaint made by the second respondent against the appellant company. The Committee had two options – either it could determine the complaint itself, or it could refer it to the Tribunal by way of laying a charge. The Committee determined the complaint itself. On appeal, the Tribunal decided that the Committee should have laid a charge and referred the matter back to the Committee for that purpose.

[4] The point raised by the appellant was short. It contended in its amended notice of appeal that the Tribunal should have formally quashed or set aside the Complaints Assessment Committee’s orders.

[5] The first respondent accepts that the effect of the Tribunal’s decision is that the Committee’s determination of the complaint was quashed, including the orders made by the committee.

[6] The second respondent agrees that the appeal should be allowed.

[7] Accordingly and by consent, I allow the appeal, and direct that the decision of the Complaints Assessment Committee issued on 12 April 2011 is quashed. The orders made by that Committee are set aside.

[8] No party sought costs, and no order is made in that regard.

[9] The appeal has now been disposed of. Counsels’ appearance on 7 February

_{2012 is excused.}

Wylie J