Judgment in case concerning sanction for estate agent

An estate agent may not engage in activities which have a tendency to undermine confidence in him or her as an estate agent. Where such occurs, the estate agent may be subject to a sanction.

An estate agent was, in parallel with her work as an estate agent, an alternate member of the board of directors and company signatory in a construction company and owned half the shares in the parent company of the construction company. The construction company was run by a party closely associated with the estate agent. The Swedish Estate Agents Inspectorate was of the opinion that the estate agent, through her involvement in the construction company, had engaged in trust-undermining activities and issued her a warning. The administrative court overturned the decision, but the administrative court of appeal agreed with the assessment of the Inspectorate and affirmed the decision to issue a warning.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the estate agent, as a consequence of the right to represent the company and through her indirect ownership in the company, had exercised controlling influence over the business and possessed a prominent proprietary economic interest therein. The Court found that the involvement in the construction company meant that the estate agent had placed herself in a situation where, in the estate brokerage activities, she could be suspected of being influenced by extraneous considerations to the detriment of sellers and buyers. The parallel activity in question was deemed to be such an activity which was likely to undermine confidence in her position as an estate agent. It was irrelevant to the assessment that the estate agent herself was not responsible for the day-to-day operations of the construction company.

Against this background, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the estate agent had acted in contravention of her obligations in accordance with the 2011 Estate Agents Act, which was the applicable act in the case. Considering that it was a matter of a basic rule of conduct which is central to protecting the parties in a brokerage engagement, the sanction for the infraction could not be limited to a notice. The Supreme Administrative Court therefore rejected the appeal.

Updated:2026-02-17