Edwards v Bridge - [2019] NZHC 2286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2018-454-000106

[2019] NZHC 2286

BETWEEN
HEATHA EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

GRAEME HASTINGS BRIDGE

First Respondent

THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

Hearing: 2 September 2019

Appearances:

A Darroch for the Appellant First Respondent in Person

M Mortimer for the Second Respondent

Judgment:

12 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

EDWARDS v BRIDGE [2019] NZHC 2286 [12 September 2019]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a decision of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) upholding a finding of unsatisfactory conduct by the Complaints Assessment Committee (“the Committee”) against the appellant, Ms Heatha Edwards, and ordering her to pay a sum of $10,000 to the first respondent, Mr Graeme Bridge, as contribution towards relief from the consequences of her errors and omissions. This order was made pursuant to s 93(1)(f)(ii) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (“the Act”).

[2] The second respondent, the Real Estate Agents Authority (“the REAA”), was named as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal and now this Court.

[3] Ms Edwards does not challenge the Tribunal’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct. Rather, she appeals the order for relief made by the Tribunal. Mr Bridge cross-appeals the quantum of the order and also seeks the removal of the REAA as a party to these proceedings.

Background

[4] Ms Edwards is a licensee for the purposes of the Act.1 She was the licensee who facilitated the sale of a property at 41 Bibby Street, Waipawa (“the Property”) to Mr Bridge.

[5] A comparative market analysis was provided for the Property on 8 April 2016, and a listing agreement was signed on 14 April 2016 between the vendors and the real estate agency (“the Agency”) where Ms Edwards was employed at the relevant time.

[6] The flyer used by Ms Edwards to advertise the Property (“the Flyer”) described it as follows:

A little starter Lifestyle

Would you look at this? Over half an acre, all flat land with a paddock, big garage with auto door, lock up workshop, store shed, laundry room and a 3- bedroom home with office! Separate lounge has heat pump and opens out to

1 Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 4(1).

the patio. Modern bathroom, separate loo, kitchen has a wet back chippie and the entire property is very tidy indeed! Come and have a look!

·Built 1964

·Galley style original kitchen with dining has loads of bench space and cupboards, with wet back chippie

·Separate lounge gets all the afternoon sun, and has a new heat pump, and sliders out to the patio in the afternoon sun

·Separate toilet

·Separate office at the back door

·3 double bedrooms, master is very large

·Standard chattels included, SKY TV dish

·Garage has power, concrete floor, new auto door, separate lock up workshop, woodshed bunker and laundry room

·Circular driveway

·Securely fenced all round with new solid fence

·An easy walk to…

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 Edwards v Bridge

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Bridge [2019] NZHC 2286
Case: [2019] NZHC 2286
Decision Date: 12 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal and cross-appeal in Edwards v Bridge were heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The appeal was brought by the appellant, Heatha Edwards, against a decision of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, which had found her to have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct. The cross-appeal was brought by the first respondent, Graeme Bridge, who sought an increase in the penalty imposed on Edwards. The second respondent, the Real Estate Agents Authority, was named as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal and in this Court. The central issues on appeal were whether the Real Estate Agents Authority's submissions should be struck out and whether the Tribunal's order for relief should be set aside. The Court concluded that the Real Estate Agents Authority should remain a party to these proceedings. The Court found that the Tribunal's order for relief was outside the scope of s 93(1)(f) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 and was properly categorised as a claim for compensation. The appeal was therefore allowed and the Tribunal's order for relief was set aside. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

Orders