The Great Estates Group Ltd v Digby [2011] EWCA Civ 1120 (13 October 2011)

The Great Estates Group Ltd v Digby [2011] EWCA Civ 1120 (13 October 2011)

The majority held that the sole agency agreement did not preclude the client from instructing another agent unless expressly stated, and that the omission of the statutory wording regarding liability for commission on a sale introduced by another agent did not breach the Estate Agents Act 1979 or the regulations, as liability for damages for breach of contract is not 'remuneration' requiring disclosure under section 18.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1120
Parties
Claimant Appellant: The Great Estates Group Ltd; Defendant Respondent: Michael John Digby
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Estate Agency Agreements, Sole Agency Vs Sole Selling Rights, Breach of Contract, Damages, Statutory Interpretation, Estate Agents Act 1979, Consumer Disclosure Requirements
Contract Law Property Law Consumer Protection Estate Agency Agreements Sole Agency Vs Sole Selling Rights Breach of Contract Damages Statutory Interpretation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Great Estates Group Ltd

Claimant Appellant

Michael John Digby

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sole agency agreement precluded the client from instructing another agent during the exclusivity period
  2. 2 Whether the omission of certain statutory wording from the agency agreement constituted a breach of the Estate Agents Act 1979 and associated regulations
  3. 3 Whether a liability to pay damages for breach of contract must be disclosed to the client under section 18 of the Estate Agents Act 1979

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the sole agency agreement did not preclude the client from instructing another agent unless expressly stated, and that the omission of the statutory wording regarding liability for commission on a sale introduced by another agent did not breach the Estate Agents Act 1979 or the regulations, as liability for damages for breach of contract is not 'remuneration' requiring disclosure under section 18.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No order for damages in favour of the Claimant