000			01882cad a22002175a 4500
001			L142712
008			080304e20070629xxk f w 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u142712
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aPettigrew v George Wimpey UK Ltd _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[2007] EWHC 2559 (QB), 29 June 2007. Considers issues which may demonstrate whether the introduction by an agent is responsible for the sale of a property. The claimant estate agent (P) introduced the respondent development company (W) to some development land. P registered W's interest with the vendor (H)'s solicitors twice over four years. However there were personnel changes within W and P's contract for introduction moved on. H made a contract with a developer who was subsequently taken over by W. Purchase of the land by W was made some eight years after P's introduction. P claimed commission on the sale. W argued that P's introduction was not the effective cause of introduction owing to personnel changes and the information not being passed on. "Held": The burden of proof that the introduction was responsible for the sale lay with P. P's introduction had not been considered by W since three years after the introduction, and such information had been destroyed. The purchase came about due to significant personal and company structuring changes involving W and the developer with whom H made contract. Judgment for the defendant.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aPETTIGREW V GEORGE WIMPEY UK LTD
650	2	4	_aNAHUM V ROYAL HOLLOWAY AND BEDFORD NEW COLLEGE
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/2559.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c79918 _d79918