Christie Owen & Davies Plc v Sykes & Anor

In an estate agency dispute, an introduction is assessed by asking which agent was the effective cause of the sale. The relevant question is whether the agent led or brought the purchaser to the transaction, rather than merely introduced the purchaser to the property. Where the same agent first creates the purchaser’s interest and later revives and advances it to completion, the original introduction is not ordinarily nullified or superseded. A different factual conclusion might be open to another tribunal, but an appellate court will not interfere where the trial judge applied the correct legal test and reached a conclusion reasonably open on the evidence.

The respondents owned a public house and entered into an agreement granting the applicant estate agent sole selling rights. The agreement required commission if a sale after the agency period was made to a purchaser introduced during that period or with whom negotiations had then taken place.

The purchaser had first been dealt with by another estate agent before the applicant’s agreement. That agent later renewed contact, arranged visits, obtained financial information and negotiated the sale. The county court judge found that the earlier agent had introduced the purchaser to the transaction before the applicant’s agreement and dismissed the commission claim. The applicant renewed an application for permission to appeal, alleging an error in the legal meaning of introduction and in the factual assessment.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal held that the county court judge had applied the correct legal test and that the renewed application disclosed no arguable error of law.
2. In accordance with John D Wood v Dantata (Estates Gazette 18 July 1987), the question was which agent was the effective cause of the sale. The phrase concerned bringing the purchaser to the transaction which ultimately took place, not merely first introducing the purchaser to the property.
3. The judge was entitled to find that the earlier agent had first interested the purchaser, maintained contact, arranged visits, secured financial information and negotiated the final price. Those findings supported the conclusion that the earlier agent had brought about the transaction.
4. It was realistic and practical to regard the original introduction as continuing where the purchaser remained interested and the same agent later stimulated that interest into a purchase. It would require some significant intervening event to nullify or render the introduction ineffective. The judge was entitled to regard it as artificial to conclude that an agent had superseded himself.
5. A different tribunal might have assessed the facts differently, but that possibility did not show that the judge’s conclusion was unavailable on the evidence. Lord Justice Kennedy agreed with Lord Justice Buxton. Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
• Northampton County Court: His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC dismissed the applicant’s commission claim in July 2002.