Éva Yvonne Chadwick v Lypiatt Studio Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Richard Spearman |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 1986 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2014-000330 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 31 July 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 1986 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Richard Spearman Q.C.
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division)
Case No: HC-2014-000330
and
Amanda Michaels (instructed by Foot Anstey LLP) for the Issue Claimant
Sophie Russell Chadwick the Issue Defendant in person
Hearing dates: 13, 14, 15 June 2018
Richard Spearman Q.C.:
Introduction and nature of the dispute
Lynn Chadwick (“the Artist”) was one of the leading British sculptors of his time. He was born on 24 November 1914 and died on 25 April 2003, leaving a prodigious artistic legacy. The Artist made a will dated 2 February 2000 (“the Will”). Probate was granted on 10 February 2005. However, these many years later, the Artist's estate has still not been wound up due to a long-running dispute concerning the bulk of his works.
In a sentence, that dispute centres on whether those works, both in terms of physical property and in terms of copyright, are owned by the Artist's estate or by the First Defendant, Lypiatt Studio Limited (“the Company”). That is the issue that is now before the Court. The Company seeks declaratory relief as to the legal or equitable title to the physical property and copyright, and (to the extent this is necessary) an order for the Claimants to vest or assign any legal rights from the Artist's estate to the Company. That relief is sought in respect of the bulk of the Artist's works, including both works created before and works created after his acquisition of the Company in mid-1973.
The Artist worked as an architectural draughtsman before and after serving in the Second World War. He started making mobiles in the late 1940s, and turned to sculpture around 1950. He rose to fame when he won the International Prize for Sculpture at the Venice Biennale in 1956, and thereafter achieved global success and acclaim. He carried on working until about 1996. During his long career he produced a variety of artworks including drawings and lithographs, but he was principally a sculptor. His works are exhibited at leading galleries and museums around the world.
The CPR Part 8 claim that is now before the Court relates primarily to the rights in the Artist's works of sculpture (including mobiles and stabiles), but also includes the Company's claim to numerous drawings and lithographs, many but not all of which are associated with his three-dimensional works. The hundreds of works that are in issue in the present trial are identified in the Amended Confidential Schedule to the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim (“the Confidential Schedule”).
Not least because a number of them share the Artist's surname, it is convenient, and involves no disrespect, to refer to the principal protagonists by their first names.
The Claimants in these proceedings are the Artist's executors: his widow (“Éva”), one of his daughters (“Sarah”), one of his sons (“Daniel”), and his solicitor (“Mr Barter”).
The Company was transferred to the Artist and Éva in 1973. They were appointed as directors on 18 June 1973, and they became equal shareholders, each being allotted 50 of the 100 issued shares in the Company. At the time of its incorporation, the Company was called Godolphin Foundry Limited. Its name was changed to Lypiatt Foundry Limited on 15 July 1973, and to Lypiatt Studio Limited on 21 June 1988.
The Artist was married three times. With his first wife, he had a son, Simon, born in 1943. Simon became a director of the Company in 2004. Simon suffered a heart attack in December 2017, and sadly died suddenly in May 2018. With his second wife, the Artist had two daughters: Sarah, born in 1958; and the Second Defendant (“Sophie”), born in 1960. With his third wife, Éva Reiner, he had a son, Daniel, born in 1965.
As well as being his executors, Éva, Sarah, and Daniel are also currently the directors of the Company. Éva has been a director since 1973, Sarah since 2000, and Daniel since 2004. Sophie was also appointed a director in 2004 (on her case, without her knowledge or consent), but resigned later that year (on her case, as soon as she found out she had been appointed a director, as this was without her knowledge or consent).
Since 1958, the Artist had lived in Lypiatt Park in Gloucestershire, which was in his sole name. This was a family home, in which various members of the family lived at different times. In addition, outbuildings were used as a studio, at one stage to house a small foundry for the Artist's works, and to store hundreds of his works; and the house and grounds were used to showcase his works. In 1988, the Company purchased a parcel of land adjoining Lypiatt Park to be used as a sculpture park, and many of the Artist's more monumental sculptures have since been displayed in that sculpture park. Sophie states that this land was not on the market, and she identified this opportunity.
By the Will, the Artist left one half of Lypiatt Park to Éva absolutely, and the other half upon trust to pay the income to Éva for life, and then on the same trust for his four children as his residuary estate, which was left on trust for the four children equally. The Will made no mention of the Artist's artworks or of copyright in them. His chattels (but not his own works of art) were divided informally between members of the family.
The Artist also left 2 of his shares in the Company to Éva. In the result, her holding increased to 52 of the 100 issued shares, and she obtained a controlling interest in the Company. The rest of his shares fell into residue. A Deed of Variation was executed on 13 April 2005, giving his children 12 shares each. As the estate has not been wound up, 50 shares remain registered in Éva's name, and 50 shares in the name of the estate.
The issue that is now before the Court was raised by Sophie in about 2005. The Company and Sophie were the only parties in the trial. The dispute was first brought before the Court by the Claimants, and they plainly have an interest in its outcome. However, the Claimants ceased to be actively involved in the action pursuant to the Order of Master Teverson dated 25 March 2015. (The time that this dispute has taken to come to trial is partly due to the grant of a stay while attempts were made to resolve it.)
Before me, Ms Amanda Michaels appeared for the Company, and Sophie appeared in person. Ms Michaels conducted the hearing robustly in her client's interests, but also with scrupulous fairness to Sophie. For her part, Sophie presented her case calmly and with dignity. She is an intelligent person, and I believe she did justice to her own case.
The resolution of the dispute in her favour might have some advantageous financial consequences for Sophie, although that would not be without its price. First, it seems inevitable that, in the event that the Company loses its claim, a substantial part of the residuary estate would need to be liquidated in order to pay inheritance tax. Second, that would have the effect of dispersing the Artist's works, when it seems clear, and appears to be common ground between the parties, that this would be contrary to his wishes in his life time. In any event, from her second witness statement in particular, it seems that the prime driver behind Sophie's stance is to be found in much more personal considerations. Sophie made that statement to correct factual errors, and to respond to certain evidence concerning her personally, contained in the first round of witness statements. That statement details some of the unhappy history of the break-up of the marriage between the Artist and Sophie's mother, her mother's tragic death at an early age, her disaffection with Éva and Daniel, and her strong feeling that the Artist wanted to be fair to all four of his children, and that the stance advanced by the Company and supported by the Claimants does not accord with what the Artist wanted.
This hearing is not the occasion to explore these matters. However, in these respects, the current dispute has some of the characteristics that are familiar in many probate cases. As Lord Neuberger MR observed in Gill v Woodall [2011] Ch 380 at [16]:
“Wills frequently give rise to feelings of disappointment or worse on the part of relatives and other would-be beneficiaries. Human nature being what it is, such people will often be able to find evidence, or to persuade themselves that evidence exists, which shows that the will did not, could not, or was unlikely to, represent the intention of the testatrix, or that the testatrix was in some way mentally affected so as to cast doubt on the will.”
The directions for trial
The directions given by Morgan J on the pre-trial review on 21 May 2018 included (a) that no oral evidence should be permitted at the trial and (b) that none of the witnesses who had made witness statements on behalf of the Company or Sophie was required to attend the trial for cross-examination or should be cross-examined at trial.
Prior to that:
(1) the Company had filed witness statements of Éva, Sarah, Daniel, Rungwe Kingdon (a foundry owner), and Roland Schäppi (an art dealer), and two witness statements each of Mr Barter and Michael Sanger-Davies (an accountant); and
(2) Sophie had filed two witness statements of her own, and a witness statement of Franck Cornaz (a former partner of hers).
At the pre-trial review, Morgan J also granted permission to the Company to make amendments to the Particulars of Claim, to the Confidential Schedule, and to the List of Issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial