Foxtons Ltd v Pelkey Bicknell & Anor
Foxtons were not entitled to commission because they did not introduce Mrs Low as the eventual purchaser; the introduction must be to the purchase, not merely to the property, and on the facts, Hamptons' activities were the effective cause of the sale.
- Parties
- Respondent: Foxtons Limited; Appellant: Treld Bicknell; Appellants: Pelkey Bicknell & Anr
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendant (Mrs Bicknell)
- Legal Topics
- Estate Agency Commission, Interpretation of Agency Contracts, Implied Terms, Effective Cause Doctrine
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Foxtons Limited
Respondent
Treld Bicknell
Appellant
Pelkey Bicknell & Anr
Appellants
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Foxtons were entitled to commission under their sole agency contract for the sale of Mrs Bicknell's house to Mrs Low
- 2 Proper construction of the phrase 'a purchaser introduced by us' in the agency contract
- 3 Whether Foxtons' introduction was the effective cause of the sale
Ratio Decidendi
Foxtons were not entitled to commission because they did not introduce Mrs Low as the eventual purchaser; the introduction must be to the purchase, not merely to the property, and on the facts, Hamptons' activities were the effective cause of the sale.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendant (Mrs Bicknell)
Orders
- HHJ Williams’s order set aside
- Judgment entered for the defendant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment