Thwaytes v Sotheby's

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns a painting ("the Painting") depicting the scene of three men playing cards, originally owned by the Plaintiff and sold through the Defendant, a renowned auction house ("Sotheby's"), in December 2006. The Painting was sold for £42,000 plus buyer's commission to a purchaser acting on behalf of a well-known Caravaggio scholar ("Sir Denis"). After the sale, Sir Denis publicly attributed the Painting as an autograph replica by Caravaggio himself, a claim supported by an Italian scholar ("Professor Gregori"). The Plaintiff alleges that Sotheby's breached its contractual and tortious duties by failing adequately to research the Painting and to recognize its potential as an original Caravaggio work, thereby causing him financial loss.

The procedural context involves the Plaintiff bringing claims against Sotheby's for negligence and breach of contract concerning their handling, assessment, and sale of the Painting.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the scope and standard of care owed by Sotheby's, as a leading international auction house, to the Plaintiff in relation to the research, assessment, and sale of the Painting?
2. Whether Sotheby's was negligent in its assessment of the Painting, specifically in failing to identify features indicating the Painting's potential attribution to Caravaggio and in failing to conduct or recommend further technical analysis such as infra-red imaging.
3. Whether Sotheby's was negligent in failing to inform the Plaintiff about the internal meeting ("Olympia Meeting") convened to reassess the Painting shortly before the sale.
4. Whether, if negligence is established, the Plaintiff suffered loss causally attributable to Sotheby's breach, and how such loss should be quantified.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the facts, expert evidence, and applicable legal principles. It began by assessing the scope of Sotheby's duty to the Plaintiff, concluding that it was the general duty owed by a leading international auction house, with no special or extended obligations arising from the Plaintiff's instructions or the Painting's provenance.

The Court analyzed Sotheby's approach to assessing the Painting, which relied primarily on the connoisseur's eye to evaluate artistic quality. It accepted Sotheby's experts were qualified and experienced, and that quality assessment is inherently subjective and complex, especially in relation to Caravaggio's works, which show variability and have a contested attribution history.

The Court considered the specific features of the Painting alleged to indicate Caravaggio authorship or non-copy status, including compositional differences, pentimenti, technical painting methods, and comparison with known copies and engravings. It found none of these features, individually or cumulatively, sufficient to have triggered a reasonable auction house to question Sotheby's initial assessment that the Painting was a copy.

Regarding technical analysis, the Court found that Sotheby's were entitled to rely on their experts' competent examination of x-rays and that there was no obligation to conduct or recommend infra-red imaging. Even if infra-red images had been obtained, the Court concluded they would not have revealed evidence sufficient to alter Sotheby's view.

The Court also addressed the failure to inform the Plaintiff about the internal Olympia Meeting, concluding that Sotheby's did not have a duty to notify the Plaintiff unless there was a significant change in the painting's status, which did not occur. The Court considered that any disclosure would not have caused the Plaintiff to withdraw the Painting from sale.

On causation, the Court considered a hypothetical scenario where Sotheby's had sought external expert opinions. It found that Sotheby's would likely have consulted the renowned scholar Sir Denis, who would have supported the Caravaggio attribution, but also that other leading experts would have expressed contrary views. Sotheby's would have maintained the Painting's status as a copy in the catalogue despite any positive opinions.

Finally, the Court addressed valuation, acknowledging the speculative nature of art pricing. It accepted that the Painting might have achieved a modestly higher price if sold with scholarly endorsements but rejected claims of significant additional value. The Court noted unresolved legal issues concerning liability for loss due to reliance on potentially erroneous expert opinions.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's claims for negligence and breach of contract against Sotheby's.

The direct consequence is that the Plaintiff's claim for damages based on Sotheby's alleged failure to recognize the Painting's Caravaggio potential is rejected. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed the standards of care applicable to leading auction houses in art valuations and the limits of liability for errors in artistic attribution. The ruling underscores the inherent subjectivity and uncertainty in art attribution and valuation, and the importance of expert judgment and caution against hindsight bias in negligence claims involving art.