The full judgement in the case Competition and Markets Authority v Michael Christopher Martin has been published.
Running to 123 paragraphs it is an extensive document that takes quite some time to read.
However, it is well worth reading if you want a graphic illustration of how the process of law dissects, analyses, and tests evidence.
Given that it is a case involving estate agencies – and is arguably one that has been used to very publicly discourage the formation of agency cartels – it has great relevance to the industry and those working in it.
In summarising mitigating factors in the conduct of now-disqualified director, Michael Martin, the judge said:
I find mitigation in Mr Martin’s previous good character as a director over many years within not insubstantial businesses.
He has not worked since July 2018 and has retired due to ill health.
He has not been a director since October 2018.
On the other hand, I must note the findings made which are contrary to his evidence and his denials of the conduct which I have found occurred.
Also, his stated knowledge of competition law.
Returning to matters in favour of mitigation, they include the steps taken by Berrymans following the CMA’s inspection whether with or without legal advice.
I note in that context the compensation scheme to which Mr Martin refers.
Whilst positive mitigation, this perhaps also draws attention to the serious financial effects a cartel such as this will have had on ordinary people selling their most valuable asset often in the context of needing funds to provide for a new home.
That is in the context of a 13-month period which would have affected significant personal funds of clients.
Taking all such matters into account including all the other matters raised in submissions, I have decided 7 years is the appropriate length for disqualification.
In reaching that figure I have borne in mind in particular the seriousness of the findings of misconduct in the context of the sale of houses/homes when estate agents have to be trusted by vendors.
The judge also awarded costs and ordered an interim payment of £100,000
NEWSFLASH: Director disqualified by the High Court – Burnham on Sea cartel case
Comments (2)
Pretty sure that this case will deter any other businesses from ripping off their clients in a similar manner. Unfortunately the whistleblowers personally avoided any financial penalties or legal costs ( but not damage to their reputation) which no doubt the other defendants involved ( and others ) will think very unfair but without their full disclosure it may have been doubtful if the full extent of the scam would have been uncovered and those responsible prosecuted. It should be worth noting that failure upon the whistleblowers to make a full and frank disclosure would make their no prosecution deal null and void so if it did subsequently transpire that they had failed to mention any material facts they could be prosecuted themselves so I guess there lies the quid pro quo. Still working within the industry pretty brazen if you ask me but no doubt their current employers/directors are aware of their past and find that type of scam acceptable
Sickening that two people, guilty of the same charges but not pursued due to an unjust leniency scheme, are allowed to continue operate in, and advise, this industry.