Legal doors close on house sale battle

The house in Milford which cost Premium Real Estate nearly $1 million. Photo / Supplied

A lawyer acting for the couple who fought the country's most bitter house sale battle is pleased it is over.

Willy Akel, a Simpson Grierson litigation partner who acted for Mark and Deborah Stevens against Premium Real Estate, welcomed the court's rejection of further litigation.

Akel said the Supreme Court's dismissal of more action last week was "a victory for common sense and finality in a long, costly and hard process".

The court turned down Premium's application challenging a judgment issued last month which upheld the High Court decision that the agency breached its obligations to the Auckland couple over the sale of their multi-million dollar home.

Akel said he and senior associate Natasha Alley had represented the couple since the case began.

Five years ago, the Stevens sold their Castor Bay house via Premium's Pam Riley to Mahoenui Valley Trust for just $2.5 million. They later discovered the trust on-sold it for $3.5 million only six months later and Riley had a close relationship with the trust, had acted for it on eight other deals and her daughter worked for it.

So the Stevens sued Premium and the case wound its way through the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which this year ruled the agency must pay almost $1 million in fines.

The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of both the High Court and Court of Appeal that Premium had breached its fiduciary duties. The Supreme Court returned to the original High Court assessment of damages following which Premium was required to pay the couple about $1 million including interest and costs.

Before the latest decision, Brian Guy of Premium had vowed not to pay the huge sum but to battle on. He remains embittered by the outcome.

"We are naturally disappointed that we have not been given the opportunity to revisit what, we were advised by our legal people, were errors made in assessing retrospective valuations in the original High Court hearing. These had a significant adverse bearing on the outcomes arrived at by all three court hearings," Guy said this week.

He continues to maintain that Premium did nothing wrong, despite the three rulings. "We have been comfortable throughout the process that we did not under-sell the property and believed that our position would be vindicated as the various hearings took place. It should be noted that everyone including the vendors were happy with the price obtained until the property was sold for well in excess of its true market value some months later," he said.

"The facts as represented by our salesperson in respect of our purchaser's intentions were based on the stated intentions of the purchaser which we have no right to question.

"We are extremely disappointed with the outcome and the constraints within the New Zealand legal system which effectively prevent us from pursuing the matter further in order to achieve a fair and just final result.

"The decision ... will have significant adverse effects on many areas which are a standard part of real estate operations in this country for many years to come."