Acting as a mere conduit, passing information from seller to intending buyer did not make a real estate agent liable for alleged misrepresentations about a leaky home.
In 2015, Tony and Robyn Weber purchased a home on Te Mata Peak Road, Havelock North. Only when looking to sell three years later did they become aware it was apparently a leaky home. Wood sampling undertaken from exterior cladding by interested buyers as part of pre-purchase due diligence identified decay and high moisture levels. They decided not to buy; the Webers withdrew Te Mata from sale and looked to recover damages in respect of their own previous purchase. Claiming $1.7 million damages in respect of their previous $1.32 purchase in 2015, the Webers sued a long list of defendants including Tremain Real Estate. Tremain acted for the 2015 vendors: Donald and Murray Gilbertson.
The Webers allege Tremain Real Estate was party to misrepresentations about Te Mata’s weather tightness. Tremain denies all liability, saying it merely passed on information including local council records provided by the Gilbertsons. Tremain did not add to or endorse the accuracy of the information provided.
Associate judge Johnston struck out the Webers claim against Tremain Real Estate. As a real estate agency, it relayed information acting purely as a conduit. Tremain was not liable for its accuracy, whether the information was misleading or not.
Webers other claims against Hastings District Council and the Gilbertsons are yet to be decided.
Weber v. Tremain Real Estate – High Court (15.06.22)
22.104