Hooker had wanted Dempster to use the same model its settlement agents, as conveyancers are known in Australia, operate under in Western Australia. It also wanted Dempster to handle a greater volume of transactions.

"I wanted it done the way it should be done. They wanted it to be done their way and that’s when we agreed to disagree," Dempster says.

"Whether I’m with Hooker or anybody else, I’m representing my clients." Hooker had wanted him to be acting in its interests as well, he says.

The Hooker people in Australia didn’t understand that the New Zealand market is quite different, he says. For a start, 98% of conveyancing here is done by lawyers while in Western Australia 98% is done by settlement agents.

In Australia, most buyers have pre-approved finance and can sign unconditional contracts immediately but pre-approved finance isn’t used much in New Zealand.

Under Australian rules, if a conveyancer’s client wasn’t able to get finance, the conveyancer would be obliged to provide proof of that to the vendor, but such requirements don’t apply here, he says.

Also, Western Australia requires vendors to provide full disclosure of all relevant documentation to potential buyers, which isn’t required here. Australia also has a cooling off period after a contract is signed, unlike here.

"They do things a lot more systematically and in a tidier way than we do here. Whenever you have lawyers involved they want to have as much confusion as possible," Dempster says.

Peter Taylor, who is now running Hooker Conveyancing in New Zealand, says there’s no great drama in the separation and "we had an amicable parting of the ways." He confirmed Hooker, which is trying to establish a one-stop-shop service in New Zealand, wants conveyancing here to be modelled on how the company does it in Australia.