COURT DECISION ON 'TECHNICALITY' PREVENTS CLAIM OVER ALLEGEDLY FAKE ANTIQUITY: QATAR INVESTMENT AND PROJECTS HOLDING CO. AND HIS HIGHNESS SHEIKH HAMAD BIN ABDULLAH AL THANI V. PHOENIX ANCIENT ART S.A.

AuthorHerman, Alexander

This recent decision of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, which arose out of the purchase of an allegedly fake antiquity, highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when pursuing a claim before the English courts. Failure to strictly observe limitation periods and related timelines for the service of proceedings will mean that a claimant is denied the opportunity to proceed on the substantive aspects of his or her claim. This decision also reveals useful information about a particular dispute over allegedly fake antiquities, showing what can happen when negotiations between buyer and seller deteriorate, sometimes beyond repair.

THE DISPUTED ARTEFACTS

At the centre of the disagreement and subsequent attempted litigation was a marble bust of the head of Alexander the Great depicted as Heracles. It was sold on 24 January 2014 for $3 million by Phoenix Ancient Art (Phoenix), a company based in Switzerland, to an entity owned and operated by Sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Al Thani, a member of Qatar's royal family (first and second claimants respectively, referred to collectively here as 'the claimant'). At the time of the sale the artefact was described by the seller as dating from the third to the first century BCE. A few months before the purchase of this bust, in May 2013, the claimant had purchased a statuette of Nike, the Greek goddess of victory. The purchase price of this artefact was around $2.2 million and it was said to date from the fourth or fifth century CE. Around four years after the purchase, the buyer became suspicious that both artefacts were in fact of a more modern manufacture and thus fakes worth only a tiny fraction of the price paid. Whilst the seller maintained that the original attributions were accurate, it agreed to take back both artefacts in exchange for six other antiquities owned by the seller. However, this proved not to be possible: five of those six pieces were in the United States and, on their attempted export, were seized by US Customs for an apparent violation of US import/export rules. This rather concerning development was referred to by the English court only in passing. However, as a result, it seemed no immediate compromise between the parties was possible.

THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND THE SERVICE OF CLAIM

Time was passing: in England and Wales the limitation period in respect of a breach of contract is six years from the date of breach--in this case, the date of sale. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT