Dickson v Real Estate Agents Authority - [2025] NZCA 404

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA123/2025
[2025] NZCA 404

BETWEEN	JANET ELIZABETH DICKSON Appellant
AND	REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY First Respondent
AND	REGISTRAR OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS Second Respondent
AND	ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF JUSTICE Third Respondent

Court:	Courtney and Collins JJ
Counsel:	G J Judd KC, B E Morten and A P Miller for Appellant A S Butler KC, S A H Bishop and T G Bain for First and Second Respondents No appearance for Third Respondent M S Timmins and H K Clow for Applicant to Intervene
Judgment: (On the papers)	15 August 2025 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to intervene is declined.
B By agreement, there is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

Introduction

[1]Mrs Dickson was a licenced real estate agent. Her registration was cancelled when she declined to undergo a 90-minute te ao Māori course called “Te Kākano” as part of her continuing professional development (CPD). Pursuant to ss 37(1)(d)(i) and 54(d) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, where a person’s licence is cancelled because they have failed to meet their CPD requirements, they become ineligible to hold a licence for at least five years.
[2]Mrs Dickson applied to judicially review the decision of the Real Estate Agents Authority (the Authority) which resulted in the cancellation of her licence. Specifically, Mrs Dickson pleaded:
(a)That the practice rules under which the Authority purported to mandate Te Kākano are invalid.
(b)The Authority’s decision to mandate Te Kākano was invalid.
(c)The decision of the Registrar of Licenced Real Estate Agents (the Registrar) declining Mrs Dickson’s application for an exemption was invalid.

[3]In the High Court, McQueen J dismissed the application for judicial review.[1] Mrs Dickson has appealed that decision. The Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Inc (the Union) now seeks leave to intervene under r 48(1)(a)(ii) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules). The Union’s application is supported by Mrs Dickson but opposed by the Authority and the Registrar. The third respondent, the Associate Minister of Justice, abides the Court’s decision.
[1]Dickson v Real Estate Agents Authority [2025] NZHC 50, [2025] 2 NZLR 265.

Governing principles

[4] In Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney-General, this Court summarised the relevant principles concerning applications for leave to intervene:[2]
[2]Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney-General [2017] NZCA 183, [2017] NZAR 627 at [11] (footnotes omitted).
(a)The power is broad in nature but should be exercised with restraint to avoid the risk of expanding issues, elongation of hearings and increasing the costs of litigation.
(b)In an appeal involving issues of general and wide importance the court may grant leave when satisfied that it would be assisted by submissions from the intervener.
(c)The fact that the case raises issues of principles transcending the particular facts is not in itself sufficient to extend rights of hearing beyond the parties.
(d)The Court…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dickson v Real Estate Agents Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZCA 404
Decision Date: 15 August 2025 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Inc could intervene in an appeal brought by Janet Dickson against the Real Estate Agents Authority, the Registrar of Licensed Real Estate Agents, and the Associate Minister of Justice. Mrs Dickson's appeal was concerned with the cancellation of her real estate agent's licence, which resulted from her refusal to complete a 90-minute Te Kākano course as part of her continuing professional development. Mrs Dickson argued that the requirement to complete the course was invalid and infringed her rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Free Speech Union sought leave to intervene in the appeal, arguing that it had relevant expertise and unique insights into the broader implications of the case.

The court considered whether the application for leave to intervene met the criteria established in Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney-General. The court noted that the application was confined to two specific grounds of appeal related to Mrs Dickson's rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Free Speech Union argued that its intervention would not expand the issues, elongate the hearings, or increase the costs of litigation. The Union also submitted that its expertise in free speech matters would be beneficial to the court.

The court declined the application for leave to intervene. The court found that the primary issue in the appeal was one of statutory interpretation, and that counsel for the parties were well-equipped to address the relevant issues. The court also found that the Union's arguments largely mirrored those of Mrs Dickson, and that its reliance on overseas jurisprudence was misplaced. The court concluded that there was no need for the Union's intervention, as the parties and the court were sufficiently capable of addressing the issues raised in the appeal. There was no order as to costs.

Orders