A real estate company owner in a dispute with an agent over use of a brand name has tried to have two Members of Parliament give evidence in the case.

The case between Dermot Nottingham and Auckland agent Martin Honey is currently under appeal to the High Court after Mr Nottingham's complaint to the Real Estate Agents Authority and subsequent appeal were dismissed.

The dispute arose after Mr Nottingham's company Property Bank Realtor Limited bought a Remax franchise in 2009 previously operated by Mr Honey.

Mr Nottingham claimed that Mr Honey continued to operate a website with Remax branding after the sale.

Advertisement

After he made complaint to the authority, Mr Honey made his own complaint about Mr Nottingham's conduct.

That prompted a complaint from Mr Nottingham, his brother Phillip Nottingham, and Property Bank Realtor director Robert McKinney, that Mr Honey's complaint was false and dishonest.

The authority's complaints assessment committee considered the complaints and decided to take no further action.

Mr Nottingham's appeal against that decision was also dismissed.

He has now appealed to the High Court, alleging the tribunal acted "corruptly, dishonestly, and immorally", and dishonestly misreported the evidence before it.

In an interlocutory judgement, Justice Edwin Wylie dealt with a number of applications by Mr Nottingham, including a request that a full bench of the High Court hear the appeal, which was rejected.

Mr Nottingham also sought to call MPs Nathan Guy and Jackie Blue to give evidence, claiming that Mr Honey had talked to Mrs Blue about the matter, who had in turn told Mr Guy, who appointed the members of the tribunal.

Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. "Whether or not Mr Honey spoke to Mrs Blue, and what actions Mrs Blue did or did not take, will simply not be relevant to the key issue on the appeal."

Advertisement

According to the earlier tribunal's appeal decision, Mr Honey said there had been no intention to trade off the Remax brand. The substantive appeal will be heard in June.