Complaints Assessment Committee 304 v Chapman

The Tribunal considered whether industry standards required commercial property managers to disclose information regarding the safety of a property to tenants. Taking in the context of the aftermath of an earthquake, they held that the relevant industry standard required a competent commercial property manager to: i) provide reports which identify a particular issue regarding the safety of a property to any affected person where they are supported by evidence and appropriate analysis; ii) where the report contains no evidence they must make enquiries with the author urgently so to not delay them providing this information to the affected persons; iii) take steps to ensure they are aware of the sticker status; and, where issues of health and safety are concerned, to disclose these to tenants even if the approval of the owners is not sought, or is sought and not granted.

The Tribunal held that Chapman failed to meet industry standards in that he was aware there was significant damage to the walls of the Southern Ink tenancy and these must be repaired before resumption of occupancy, he did not pass on this information to the tenants and did not clarify the sticker status. However, under s.73(a) Chapman could only be guilty of misconduct where his conduct would reasonably be regarded by agents of good standing or reasonable members of the public, as disgraceful. Considering the ordinary meaning of disgraceful, the Tribunal was unable to conclude that an agent of good standing or a reasonable member of the public would regard Chapman’s conduct as disgraceful. Therefore, they held there was no misconduct on Chapman’s behalf.