Legal Research
Cases
Bates v Valuers Registration Board

Bates v Valuers Registration Board

Case [2015] NZHC 1312 15 June 2015

Professional Discipline

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-11308 [2015] NZHC 1312

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER OF

the Valuers Act 1948

BETWEEN

PETER DESMOND BATES Plaintiff

AND

THE VALUERS REGISTRATION BOARD

Defendant

Hearing:
Further submissions:

16 February 2015

26 March 2015

Counsel:

V E Casey with M S Anderson for Plaintiff
R K P Stewart with H L Coull for Defendant

Judgment:

15 June 2015

Reissued:

22 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] A valuer sends an intemperate email to the president of the New Zealand Institute of Valuers. It concerns proposed reforms to the valuation profession being driven by lending institutions. Smaller valuation firms believe the reforms imperil their existence. The president, herself a member of a smaller firm, has been supportive of their stance. But of late her support has become more tepid. There are
rumours she has joined one of the large valuation firms.1 The valuer believes the

president has a conflict of interest. His email, copied to nine other valuers, suggests

that the president is “inept” or “corrupt”.

1 Rumours that later are confirmed.

[2] It is one of those foolish emails, written in the heat of the moment, that should never have been sent. Later the valuer apologises to the president.

[3] The president, doubtless, is upset. She threatens defamation proceedings. But she does not file them. She does not make any formal complaint about the valuer’s conduct. But the acting chief executive of the Institute makes a complaint. It is directed to the Valuers Registration Board, rather than the Institute. Both bodies have their own disciplinary processes. He says the email may be a breach of the Code of Ethics of the Institute. He says “this potential breach … could jeopardise
[the valuer]’s status as a registered valuer as per s 31 of the Valuers Act 1948.”2

[4] No one suggests the valuer acted in bad faith. No one, least of all the valuer, doubts he acted foolishly and impetuously. But no one now suggests that his registration as a valuer is seriously in question as a result. At most, a reprimand is appropriate.

[5] Yet, three and a half years later, this complaint still has not been heard by the Board. How have things reached such an impasse? Did the Board even have jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint? And should its decision to do so be quashed for bias or delay?

Background

[6] Mr Peter Bates is a registered valuer. He commenced practice as a valuer in

2002, and became a registered valuer in 2007. In 2010 he established his present firm, Bates & Associates Limited. He has been active in educating the profession, in particular in conjunction with Massey University where he studied. He was elected to the Auckland branch committee of the Institute, and of the Property Institute of New Zealand, in 2010 and 2011. He was an active opponent of the reforms referred
to earlier. I will describe them now…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bates v Valuers Registration Board

Details

AGLC: Bates v Valuers Registration Board [2015] NZHC 1312
Case: [2015] NZHC 1312
Decision Date: 15 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Mr Peter Bates, sought judicial review of the decision of the Valuers Registration Board to hear a complaint against him. The complaint arose from an email sent by Mr Bates to the president of the New Zealand Institute of Valuers. Mr Bates argued that the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and that its decision to hear it was biased, based on the membership of the Board, and delayed. The court found that the Board had jurisdiction to hear the complaint and that its decision to hear it was not biased. However, the court found that the decision to hear the complaint was delayed and that the delay had prejudiced Mr Bates. The court quashed the charge brought under s 31(1)(c) of the Act and stayed the charge brought under s 31(1)(a) of the Act.

Orders