• If you are looking for a specific decision with a forward slash in the title (eg, 123/2014), you will need to replace the forward slash with a space (eg, 123 2014), as the website cannot pick up on forward slashes (/) or any other characters.
  • If you are doing a keyword search (eg, conduct), please note that this search will only produce decisions where the keyword appears in the title or decision description. If you want to search the entire decision document for certain keywords, you will need to use full website search located in the top right hand corner of this page.

If you want to search for a decision from a particular jurisdiction using the full website search, put both the jurisdiction name and the keyword in the search field (eg, Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal).

Search results

764 items matching your search terms

  1. [2021] NZREADT 53 - D v REAA & X (15 October 2021) [PDF, 235 KB]

    Unprofessional behaviour / licensee wrote to vendor expressing concern about the junior agent they listed with / whether conduct likely to bring real estate industry into disrepute / Vosper v Real Estate Agents Authority [2017] NZHC 453 / Watson v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 1906) [2021] NZREADT 37 / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 72, s 111 / Professional Rules 2012, r 6.3 / no breach of r 6.3 / isolated communication using moderate language / no intention to offend / complaint made by principal of junior agent’s firm, not consumer / text message arguably below standard expected and might be unacceptable, but not sufficient to warrant disciplinary response / licensee apologised and donated to charity / Committee’s decisions reversed / no further action 

  2. [2021] NZREADT 52 - QH v KE, SE & Agency (14 October 2021) [PDF, 299 KB]

    False and misleading information / website listing categorised part rural zoned property as residential / whether complainant was misled at the time contract went unconditional / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 73, s 111 / Professional Rules 2012, r 6.4, r 8.3 / new evidence on appeal / partial extract of valuation report unable to be relied on / r 6.4 does not require an intention to mislead / advertisement contained false and misleading information, reader entitled to take information at face value / unlikelycomplainant did not know of true zoning /  information present on sale contract and certificate of title / advised to undertake due diligence / determination confirmed.

  3. [2021] NZREADT 35 - Brady (7 July 2021) [PDF, 287 KB]

    A charge laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. Penalty decision. Found guilty of misconduct under s 73(b) (seriously incompetent or seriously negligent real estate agency work). Censured and ordered to pay a fine of $4,000. Ordered to undertake further training by completing Unit Standards 23136 (“Demonstrate knowledge of consumer protection law related to real estate practice”) and 23149 (“Demonstrate knowledge of licensing and code of professional conduct under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008”) within six months of the date of this decision. Ordered to pay $10,000 to the Authority as contribution towards the Committee’s costs.

  4. [2021] NZREADT 28 - New Zealand LJ International Limited & Zeng (15 June 2021) [PDF, 327 KB]

    Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. Outcome: Agency found guilty of misconduct under s 73(c)(i) of the Act and unsatisfactory conduct under s 72(b) of the Act. Second defendant found guilty of misconduct under s 73(c)(i) of the Act in relation to two failures to comply. Agency censured and fined $5,000. Second defendant censured, licence suspended for 18 months from date of decision, ordered to complete Unit Standards 23136, 23141 and 23149, and fined $5,000. Agency and second defendant collectively finded $10,214 by way of contribution towards Committee's costs.

  5. [2021] NZREADT 27 Harvey v Lowe (10 June 2021) [PDF, 388 KB]

    An appeal under section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. Appeal against decsion of Complaints Assessment Committee 2001 which made as finding of unsatisfactory conduct and penalty orders against Appellant. Outcome: appeal allowed in part. Committee's finding that Appellant breached rr 5.1, 6.1 and 9.6 in relations to signatures on the agency agreement and the agreement for sale and purchase quashed. Penalty decision that Appellant refund part of commission paid quashed. All other aspects of the Committee's substantive decision upheld.