Haigh Farming (Pty) Ltd v E.G Elliot Real Estate CC (14175/13) [2014] ZAKZPHC 58 (18 November 2014)

Haigh Farming (Pty) Ltd v E.G Elliot Real Estate CC (14175/13) [2014] ZAKZPHC 58 (18 November 2014)

The court found that, on a prima facie basis, the plaintiff had established that Mr Brad Haigh acted on behalf of the plaintiff and that contracts were concluded as alleged. The plaintiff did not charge commission directly; the defendant, a registered estate agent, charged commission and was contractually obliged to pay a portion to the plaintiff. The central legal question was whether such an arrangement, commonly referred to as a 'spotter's fee' or 'consultancy fee', is illegal or contrary to public policy. The court was not referred to any authority indicating that such agreements are illegal or contra bonis mores. Accordingly, the court was not persuaded that absolution from the...

Citation
[2014] ZAKZPHC 58
Parties
Plaintiff: Haigh Farming (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: E.G Elliot Real Estate CC
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2014
Case Number
14175/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Absolution From the Instance at Close of Plaintiff's Case
Outcome
Application for absolution from the instance dismissed with costs to be costs in the cause.
Judges
Mbatha
Legal Topics
Absolution From the Instance, Estate Agency Affairs Act, Consultancy Fee, Spotters Fee
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Absolution From the Instance Estate Agency Affairs Act Consultancy Fee Spotters Fee

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haigh Farming (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

E.G Elliot Real Estate CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Absolution From the Instance at Close of Plaintiff's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved the existence of the agreement as alleged.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff acted as a consultant and not as an estate agent under the agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was the contracting party and not Mr Brad Haigh in his personal capacity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, on a prima facie basis, the plaintiff had established that Mr Brad Haigh acted on behalf of the plaintiff and that contracts were concluded as alleged. The plaintiff did not charge commission directly; the defendant, a registered estate agent, charged commission and was contractually obliged to pay a portion to the plaintiff. The central legal question was whether such an arrangement, commonly referred to as a 'spotter's fee' or 'consultancy fee', is illegal or contrary to public policy. The court was not referred to any authority indicating that such agreements are illegal or contra bonis mores. Accordingly, the court was not persuaded that absolution from the...

Court Disposition

Application for absolution from the instance dismissed with costs to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The application for absolution from the instance is dismissed.
  • Costs to be costs in the cause.