| Thwaytes v Sotheby's | |
|---|---|
 The alleged copy of Caravaggio's The Cardsharps that was involved in the case | |
| Court | High Court |
| Full case name | Mr Lancelot Thwaytes v Sotheby's |
| Decided | 16 January 2015 |
| Citations |
|
| Case opinions | |
| Rose J: Luxmoore-May v Messenger applied. Sotheby's discharged its duty of care, which was higher than that of a 'provincial' auction house. Partly because their methods were generally sound and partly because the painting was not an autograph replica by Caravaggio. | |
| Keywords | |
| |
Thwaytes v Sotheby's [2015] EWHC 36 is an English High Court art law case, concerning the liability in negligence and breach of contract of a leading auction house for the professional opinions and valuations they provide where an interested art historian later has a different opinion affecting its value.
This case involved a copy of Caravaggio's The Cardsharps and whether Sotheby's view that it was indeed a copy and not an autograph work by Caravaggio was correct, or at least, reasonable.
The claimant was Lancelot Thwaytes, the seller of the painting and the defendant was Sotheby's, his auctioneer. Thwaytes was represented by Henry Legge KC[1] (of 5 Stone Buildings) and Andrew Bruce[2] (of Serle Court). Sotheby's was represented by Andrew Onslow KC[3] and the late Richard Edwards (both of 3 Verulam Buildings).[4]
The case was heard in 2014 by Rose J (as she then was). She was later elevated to the Court of Appeal and in April 2021 to the Supreme Court.[5]
- ^ "Henry Legge QC". 5 Stone Buildings. Retrieved 2023-06-08.
- ^ "Andrew Bruce | Serle Court". Serle Court. Retrieved 2023-06-08.
- ^ "Andrew Onslow KC". Three Verulam Buildings. Retrieved 2023-06-08.
- ^ Bailey, Petra (2021-01-15). "Richard Edwards QC". Three Verulam Buildings. Retrieved 2023-06-08.
- ^ "Swearing-in of Lady Justice Rose as Justice of the Supreme Court". The Supreme Court. Retrieved 2023-06-08.