Agents’ Mutual has been ordered to pay into court £1m.
The Financial Times reports that £750,000 of that money must be paid in by today, and the rest by August 30.
The money is in security for Gascoigne Halman’s costs and to “fortify” financially an undertaking it has so far given in the proceedings, according to the FT.
Gascoigne Halman, recently acquired by Connells but a former Gold member, is accused by Agents’ Mutual of breach of agreement.
The firm had allegedly tried to switch its listings from OnTheMarket to Zoopla.
According to the FT, Gascoigne Halman has argued that the “one other portal” rule was void and unenforceable, because it constituted anti competitive behavour under the Competition Act 1998.
The FT says it has accused Agents’ Mutual of poor marketing, saying it had never devoted adequate resources.
EYE had earlier been told by a source of the requirement for £1m to be paid into court by Agents’ Mutual.
However, both Agents’ Mutual and Connells declined to confirm this.
The FT’s story also claims that as part of its defence, Gascoigne Halman has claimed that Ian Springett, chief executive of Agents’ Mutual, suggested in a meeting with Connells, Countrywide and LSL that all three should agree to boycott Zoopla and would be compensated financially for any fall in their Zoopla shareholdings.
According to the story, this suggestion was rejected.
Agents’ Mutual told the FT it had filed a Reply to the Defence yesterday, and that at no time did Springett seek to persuade the corporates collectively to boycott Zoopla.
Agents’ Mutual had taken careful legal advice and was satisfied it was operating within the law.
Agents’ Mutual has brought a similar case against south Wales estate agents Moginie James, as earlier reported by EYE.
According to the FT story, the High Court has referred the cases to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, a specialist court for competition disputes, calling for them to be dealt with quickly.
The Tribunal will hold a preliminary meeting next Tuesday, July 26.
Comments (8)
Danger…lawyers at work and journalists reporting on overheard and half stories/comments. That money is a surety…no more at this point!
Those not signed up to OTM, beware delays, the market is turning fast and the portals will be squeezing you and your margins very soon! Apathy is not an excuse.
Further reinforcing the fact that those with agendas to satisfy will twist, turn – or otherwise rip the truth to shreds for their own gain.
…meanwhile the Planks will ‘Dislike’ a comment that goes against what they believe/are told to believe – as in their tiny, narrow minds it makes it go away.
Awww, bless…
As fascinating as this case will be to follow, the fact is that OTM/AM is doomed if it wins and doomed if it loses. They have boxed themselves in to a corner from which they cannot escape…they have kind of become the business equivalent of the Labour Party.
I’m pretty sure Ian Springett isn’t allowed to say it but I will – IT’S IN EVERY INDEPENDENT ESTATE AGENTS INTEREST TO BOYCOTT ZOOPLA AND RIGHTMOVE.
Aaaaah I feel better already.
Trying to convince businesses not use suppliers they have share holdings in seems unlikely even for Mr Springett.
Well that’s the 2017 & 18 marketing budget blown.
Things were going so well with their letters of intent as well!
Rubbish. If you had attended any of the AM roadshows you would know that their income is well able to handle this payment without damaging their business.
When a litigant seeks such a payment into Court it is not only to ensure there are sufficient funds are available if the other side loses but it has the secondary purpose of discomforting the opposition and helps to make life difficult for them. That is almost certainly what is happening here.
And I wonder which interested entity might just be egging them on to do that…?