Thomson v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jack |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 1101 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ 01X05244 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 19 May 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 1101 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Jack
Case No: HQ 01X05244
Mr. Robert Miles QC and Mr. Paul Greenwood (instructed by Herbert Smith) for the Claimant
Mr. Andrew Onslow QC and Miss Tamara Oppenheimer (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the 1st and 2nd Defendants
Mr. John McCaughran QC and Mr. Adam Goodison (instructed by Lawrence Graham) for the 3rd Defendant
Hearing dates : 10 March – 6 April 2004
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Jack
TAYLOR THOMSON V CHRISTIE'S
Contents
(Paragraph)
| 1. | A. | Introduction |
| 2. | B. | The claims that have been made |
| 11. | C. | The main issues and Christie's concession as to duty |
| 17. | D. | The description of the Houghton urns and the origin of the design |
| 23. | E. | The problem |
| 26. | F. | The cataloguing of the urns by Christie's |
| 44. | G. | Ms Thomson's relations with Christie's prior to the auction: Special Client services |
| 51. | H. | The auction |
| 52. | I. | Events after the sale |
| 77. | J. | Were Christie's aware of contrary opinions concerning the Houghton Urns prior to the sale? |
| 86. | K. | The Paris urns |
| 87. | L. | The further descriptions of the Getty urns |
| 90. | M. | The expert evidence as to the dating of the Houghton urns |
| 1. | The visual evidence | |
| 103. | (a) | The design of the urns |
| 110. | (b) | Makers marks |
| 111. | (c) | Provenance |
| 112. | (d) | The porphyry |
| 122. | (e) | The mounts |
| 123. | (i) | The method of casting |
| 124. | (ii) | The number of pieces in which a mount was cast |
| 125. | (iii) | Thickness of casting |
| 126. | (iv) | Casting accidents |
| 127. | (v) | Methods of joining: forge brazing and torch brazing |
| 128. | (vi) | Fixing points |
| 129. | (vii) | Chasing and pouncing |
| 130. | (viii) | The gilding |
| 131. | (ix) | Holes, bolts and screws |
| 132. | (f) | The liners |
| 2. | The metallurgical evidence | |
| 151. | (a) | General |
| 155. | (b) | Dr Northover's evidence to be viewed as a whole |
| 157. | (c) | The composition of the brass used for the mounts |
| 159. | (i) | The use of the data base |
| 160. | (ii) | The impurities argument |
| 167. | (iii) | Zinc levels: the cementation or spelter process |
| 168. | (iv) | Pb-210 testing of the mounts |
| 169. | (d) | The composition of the brass used for the liners |
| 170. | (e) | The metal used for the repair |
| 171. | (f) | Comparison of solders |
| 172. | (g) | The metallographic evidence relevant to brazing of the mounts |
| 173. | (h) | The metallographic evidence as to the sheets used for the liners |
| 174. | (i) | The gilding of the liners |
| 177. | (j) | Dr. Northover's evidence as a whole |
| 178. | 3. | The Getty urns and Date |
| 179. | N. | Conclusion as to date |
| 183. | O. | Where were the urns made? |
| 184. | P. | Breach of duty? |
| 199. | Q. | Misrepresentation |
| 200. | R. | Damages |
Mr Justice Jack :
A. Introduction
On 8 December 1994 an auction, known as the Houghton sale, took place at Christie's in London. The items sold were from the contents of Houghton in Norfolk. Houghton was built in the early 18th century by Sir Robert Walpole, whose daughter married the third Earl of Cholmondeley. It is now owned by the seventh Marquess of Cholmondeley. There were 147 lots and the sale realised £21.2 million. Some of the items sold such as furniture acquired by Sir Robert were original to the house. The greater part were not, and had come by inheritance from Sir Philip Sassoon, the brother of the grandmother of the present Lord Cholmondeley and so his great-uncle. Sir Philip Sassoon was a considerable collector, in particular of French furniture and objets d'art of the 18th and 19th centuries. Lot 56, however, 'A pair of Louis XV porphyry and gilt-bronze two handled vases', had been acquired not by Sir Philip, but by his sister, Sybil, Countess of Rocksavage, and the present Lord Cholmondeley's grandmother. She told him that she had bought them in France. A photograph showing the vases taken in 1921 establishes that her purchase must have been before that. Lot 56 was bought by the claimant in this action, Ms Taylor Lynne Thomson. She bid £1,750,000. With the buyer's premium payable to Christie's the total price was £1,957,388. The estimate had been £400,000 to £600, 000. In October 1998 Ms Thomson heard a suggestion that the vases might not be Louis XV but made in the Second Empire or later in the 19th century. Correspondence with Christie's followed. On 21 December 2001 Ms Thomson started this action against three defendants. She claimed against the first and third defendants, Christie Manson & Woods Limited and Lord Cholmondeley, on the ground that the vases, or urns as they have often been called and were called in this action, were 19th century and worth only some £20,000 to £30,000. She made a subsidiary claim against the second defendant, Christie's Fine Art Security Services Limited, arising out of the storage of the urns after her purchase of them.
B. The claims that have been made
The trial of the action began on 10 March 2004. After closing speeches had been made on behalf Lord Cholmondeley and Christie's, on 6 April, the 18th day of the trial, Ms Thomson agreed terms with Lord Cholmondeley for the settlement of her claims against him. The action therefore continued against Christie's alone. That did not mean that Lord Cholmondeley was removed from the dispute. For, if Christie's are held liable to Ms Thomson, they seek to recover the whole or part of what they have to pay Ms Thomson from him. By reason of this, it may remain helpful to set out what the bases of Ms Thomson's claims against Lord Cholmondeley were.
At this point I will simply identify the claims leaving the elaboration of the claims against Christie's and the defences which are raised in respect of them until later. I will, however, set out the limitation position in respect of each.
The first claim made in part 8 of the re-amended particulars of claim was against Lord Cholmondeley as vendor and was for breach of the condition implied under the Sale of Goods Act (here that of 1979) as to compliance with description. It was alleged that there was a breach of the condition because the urns were not Louis XV. It was alleged that by reason of the breach Ms Thomson was entitled to reject the urns and to reclaim the purchase price including buyer's premium, which right it was purported to exercise in the particulars of claim. Alternatively damages were claimed. It is accepted by Ms Thomson that this claim is barred by limitation because she began her action over 6 years after the auction.
The second claim is for misrepresentation by reason of what was stated in the catalogue and by reason of what was said by Mr Cooney, a representative of Christie's who discussed the urns with Ms Thomson. It is alleged in the amended particulars of claim that the statements were incorrect because the urns are much later than Louis XV and are not of the quality stated. As will appear the case in misrepresentation was developed somewhat differently during the trial. This claim for misrepresentation was made first against Lord Cholmondeley and was for rescission and repayment of the purchase price. It was alternatively for damages under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. It was accepted by Ms Thomson that, subject to an appeal to the House of Lords, this claim against Lord Cholmondeley for damages under section 2(1) was barred by limitation following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Laws v The Society of Lloyd's [2003] EWCA Civ 1887.
A similar claim under section 2(1) is made against Christie's. Ms Thomson asserts that by reason of terms in Christie's conditions of business there was a contract between them in addition to that between her and Lord Cholmondeley, and so section 2(1) applies between them. At the start of the trial Mr Robert Miles Q.C. appearing for Ms Thomson applied to re-amend her reply to Christie's defence to meet any limitation defence by pleading a case under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, asserting that Christie's had deliberately concealed her cause of action from her. I was later informed by Mr Andrew Onslow Q.C. representing Christie's that the re-amendment was unnecessary because Christie's did not rely on any limitation defence to this claim.
It is alleged against Christie's that Christie's owed Ms Thomson a duty of care in describing and dating the urns and to inform her of any doubts or queries of which Christie's were aware. Damages are claimed for breach of the duty. The duty is alleged to arise not simply by reason of Ms Thomson's receipt of the catalogue with its description of the urns but by reason of her position as a 'Special Client' of Christie's and what she was told about the urns prior to the sale by Mr Cooney on behalf of Christie's. The action was begun over 6 years after the auction, but it is accepted by Christie's that the operation of section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 saves the claim from being barred.
It was alleged against the Marquess that he owed a duty of care to Ms Thomson, which was broken through the negligence of Christie's. It was alternatively alleged that in the absence of such duty he was vicariously liable for the negligence of Christie's, who were his agents. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewer v Mann
...in breach of duty for an opinion as to the description of an antique, see the well-known case of the pair of Louis XV urns, Thompson v. Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 555, [2005] PNLR 38. We will revert below to the issue of whether, correspondingly, the description of the car......
-
Thomson v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd
...were made in the 18 th century might be questionable or wrong. 3 The action was tried by Jack J, who gave judgment on 19 th May 2004— [2004] EWHC 1101(QB). His judgment is a masterpiece of evidentiary analysis, worthy to stand with any such exposition of works of art of this kind. It is an ......
-
Avrora Fine Arts Investment Ltd v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd
...to which I was referred in this context included Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1885) LR 28 Ch D 7 and Thomson v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2004] EWHC 1101 (QB), [2004] PNLR 42. In Smith v Land and House Property Corporation, Bowen LJ said (at 15): "if the facts are not equa......
-
Carleton (Earl of Malmesbury) v Strutt & Parker (A Partnership)
...in action I refer to the Smith New Court case, cited above, – shares. As to chattels I refer to the case of the Houghton urns, Thompson v Christie, Manson & Woods [2005] EWCA Civ 555 at paragraphs 124 and 132 to 139. There the Court of Appeal made clear that matters affecting value which co......
-
The Trouble with Moral Rights
...worksbecause in these circumstances it may well be argued that the better copy repre-114 ThomsonvChristieManson &Woodsand Others [2004] EWHC1101(QB).115 Merryman, n 110 above.116 Hansmann and Santill i,n 3 4 above,130^131; D.Vaver, ‘Moral RightsYesterday,Todaya ndTomor-row’ (1999) 7 Interna......