William Duke Coleridge 5th Baron Coleridge of Ottery St Mary v Sotheby's
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | HH Judge Pelling QC |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 370 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC 10 C 03335 |
| Date | 01 March 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 370 (Ch)
His Honour Judge Pelling QC
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Case No: HC 10 C 03335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Joshua Munro and Mr Nicholas Pilsbury (instructed by Michelmores) for the Claimant
Mr Richard Edwards (instructed by Wragge & Co) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 7 -10 and 13-14 February 2012
Introduction
In these proceedings, the claimant ("Lord Coleridge") claims damages for losses alleged to have been suffered by him as a result of an alleged breach of a Hedley Byrne duty by the defendant ("Sotheby's") by advising him to sell a judicial Collar of Ss belonging to him ("the Coleridge Collar") to a private buyer for a price of £35,000.
Lord Coleridge's case at trial was that he ought to have been advised that the collar was or was probably manufactured prior to 1576 and was likely to achieve £300,000—£400,000 at auction and that it had a value of up to twice the lowest auction figure for a sale by private treaty. In the alternative Lord Coleridge alleges that Sotheby's acted in breach of duty by advising him to sell the Collar for £35,000 even if (contrary to his primary case) it was correct to advise him that it was manufactured in the late 17 th Century. He claims as damages for negligence the difference between the true value of the Coleridge Collar in November 2006 when it was sold by him and £35,000 being the price at which he sold it. Sotheby's deny liability and maintain that a reasonably competent auctioneer would have advised Lord Coleridge that the collar concerned was manufactured in the late 17 th Century and was worth £35,000 on the material that was available to, or which could reasonably have been obtained by, its expert staff.
The trial took place between 7–10 and 13–14 February 2012. I heard oral factual evidence on behalf of the Claimant from Lord Coleridge, his daughter, the Hon. Tania Harcourt-Cooze, Mr Duncan Campbell, an specialist dealer in antique silverware who initially advised Mr and Mrs Norris in relation to the Coleridge Collar and Mr Christopher Walne, the senior assayer employed by the Goldsmiths Company. After Mr Walne had given his evidence, an issue arose as to whether the tests performed by him on the Coleridge Collar would have revealed certain trace elements in the metal from which it is manufactured. I gave permission for him to be recalled but in the event he was not recalled. I heard oral evidence on behalf of the Defendant from Mrs Elisabeth Mitchell, Lord Dalmeny, Dr Ogden who is the Chief executive of the Gemmological Association, Ms Marian Campbell, an Honorary Senior Research fellow at the Victoria & Albert Museum ("V&A") and Mrs Philippa Glanville, formerly Assistant Keeper of English Silver at the V&A. It is important to remember that whilst each of these last three witnesses are apparently distinguished experts in their field they were not called as such. They were called to give evidence of fact.
Expert evidence was given on behalf of the Claimant by Professor Sir John Baker QC., LL.D., Ph.D (whose evidence was in substance unchallenged) and by Mr Wynyard Wilkinson FSA Sc., an expert in Early British and Irish Silver and on behalf of the Defendant by Mr Charles Truman FSA, formerly a director of Christie's employed in its Silver Department.
The Relevant History
Prior to the Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875, the principal courts of common law were the courts of (a) Kings Bench, (b) Common Pleas and (c) Exchequer. The Courts of Queens Bench and Common Pleas were each presided over by a Chief Justice and the Court of Exchequer was presided over by the Chief Baron. Originally each court exercised different jurisdictions. The Court of Common Pleas was concerned with actions between subjects particularly concerning Land and debt issues. The Court of Kings Bench was concerned with matters in which the Crown was interested and the Court of Exchequer was concerned at any rate initially with fiscal issues between the Crown and its subjects. However by the end of the 17 th Century all these courts had similar jurisdictions with broadly similar processes.
By the middle of the 19 th Century it was recognised that these arrangements could no longer be justified and the Judicature Act 1873 was passed. Its effect was to create a single post of Lord Chief Justice (which in the event was filled by the then Chief Justice Queens Bench) and one High Court of Justice with a number of divisions which, initially, included Kings Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions. The creation of three common law divisions was necessary only because it was by then regarded as constitutionally unacceptable to force retirement or demotion on those Chiefs then in post who did not become Lord Chief Justice.
John Duke 1 st Baron Coleridge ("Lord Coleridge CJ") was the last Chief Justice Common Pleas. He held office from 1873 until 1880. In 1880 Sir Alexander Cockburn CJ (formerly the Chief Justice Queens Bench and from 1875 the first Lord Chief Justice) and Sir Fitzroy Kelly (then the Chief Baron) both died in office. Following these events, by an Order in Council made on 16 th December 1880, the three common law divisions were merged into one Queens Bench Division, which thereafter assumed the work of all three former divisions. The then Chief Justice Common Pleas (Lord Coleridge CJ) was appointed Lord Chief Justice. He held that office until his death in 1894.
Part of the regalia of the Chief Justices and Chief Baron was a gold livery collar known as a Collar of Ss or "esses". This nomenclature derives from the form of the links in the chains which appears as, or similar to, the letter "S". The Coleridge Collar was the Collar worn by Lord Coleridge CJ while he was Chief Justice Common Pleas.
The Coleridge Collar
By no later than last quarter of the 16 th Century 1 judicial collars of Ss were accepted as being the personal property of the office holders concerned rather than being an "office-loom". Lord Coleridge CJ, being the last holder of the office of Chief Justice Common
Pleas, retained his collar, which then passed to each Baron by succession until 1962, when it was given to Lord Coleridge by his father.The Coleridge Collar is 172.5 cm in length, weighs 20.5 Troy ounces and consists of 27 S links interspersed with 26 wrought knots with a Tudor rose at its centre flanked by two portcullises. Although described by Mrs Mitchell in the draft auction entry for the Collar prepared by her as being of 22 carat gold, it is now common ground that all the elements of the Collar save the Tudor Rose are manufactured of 20 carat Gold. It is common ground that the Tudor Rose is manufactured of 22 carat Gold.
The Ss links of the Coleridge Collar were manufactured using a casting technique. Which technique was used is controversial between the parties, as is its materiality to an attempt to date the Coleridge Collar. Lord Coleridge's case is that the Ss links were made using a "slush" casting method, that this method of casting was the or the predominate method used in England during the Tudor period but had ceased to be so by the last half of the 17 th century and thus makes it probable that the chain or at any rate the SS links within it were manufactured at some unknown date during the Tudor period. It is also Lord Coleridge's case that it became illegal to manufacture items of gold of less than 22 carats of fineness from 20 th April 1576 (something I explain in more detail below). Lord Coleridge's case is that the fineness of the gold used to manufacture the Tudor Rose (and the absence of any enamel embellishment) (both points which would tend to support a late 17 th Century date for manufacture of the Collar) is because the Rose is a later addition.
Lord Coleridge's case is that these factors (the method of manufacture, that the Ss links are of gold of 20 carats of fineness and the imposition of a 22 carat gold standard from 20 th April 1576) that the Coleridge Collar was or was probably manufactured prior to 1576, and that if Sotheby's had acted in accordance with its duty of care it would have so advised Lord Coleridge. At an earlier stage in the proceedings it was Lord Coleridge's case that Sotheby's ought to have dated the collar to the period known as the "Great Debasement" – that is the period between 1 st April 1546 and October 1551 when Henry VIII devalued the currency by debasing the gold content of coin from 22 carats to 20 carats of fineness. That case was abandoned at a late stage however, following an amendment to the Particulars of Claim in December 2011.
Sotheby's case is that (a) the Ss links were manufactured using an open mould casting method which was still in use in the post restoration part of the 17 th century, (b) the statutory gold standard relied on by Lord Coleridge was widely breached from the time when it was enacted at any rate by jewellers and thus (c) neither the fineness of the gold nor the method of manufacture provide a sound basis for arriving at a judgment as to the age of the Coleridge Collar. Sotheby's do not accept that the Tudor Rose was manufactured any later than the rest of the Collar and maintain that the absence of enamel embellishment of the Rose establishes that it and the Collar is more likely to have been manufactured in the post restoration part of the 17 th Century. It maintains that this view is supported by the evidence to be derived from an examination of the relevant portraits available at the time, by such historical information as is available concerning the Coleridge Collar and is consistent with what can be ascertained from an examination of the only other extant 17 th Century...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Qatar Investment & Projects Development Holding Company v John Eskenazi Ltd
...J); Thomson v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd [2004] PNLR 42 (Jack J) reversed in part [2005] EWCA Civ 555 (CA); Coleridge v Sotheby's [2012] EWHC 370 (Ch) (HHJ Pelling QC); Avrora v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd [2012] EWHC 2198 (Ch) (Newey J); Thwaytes v Sotheby's [2015] EWHC 36 (Ch) (Rose......
-
BLG Monthly Update - April 2012
...the standard of a reasonable and competent valuer in her position, but should also have given an estimate for private sale at ₤50,000: [2012] EWHC 370 (Ch). Lord C was entitled to ₤15,000 to account for the difference, rather short of the ₤415,000 claimed. Court costs on both sides are said......
-
The Fine Art of Acquiring Authentic Artworks.
...Manson & Woods Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ. 555 (noted by A.H. Hudson in (2005) X Art Antiquity and Law 307) and Coleridge v. Sotheby's [2012] EWHC 370 (Ch.) (noted by Paul Stevenson in (2013) XVIII Art Antiquity and Law 77). However, scientific evidence was not determinative and the courts had......