Dealers in High Court over antique bookcase

A leading firm of London antique dealers has brought High Court proceedings against a Dublin firm of antique dealers for the …

A leading firm of London antique dealers has brought High Court proceedings against a Dublin firm of antique dealers for the recovery of over £111,000 arising out of a claim that the London firm had purchased an 18th-century bureau/bookcase from the Dublin firm without knowing it was allegedly stolen from a lord in Northern Ireland.

Mark Sanfey SC, for Malletts of New Bond Street, London said his clients were one of the most pre-eminent companies in relation to English antique furniture, while the defendant, Rory Rogers, carried on business at Ballsbridge Gardens, Shelbourne Road, Dublin.

The case concerned an 18th century bookcase which was bought by Malletts from Mr Rogers, counsel said. It subsequently transpired it was stolen. The action was for the recovery of the purchase price of £80,000 and the recovery of the costs of restoration by Malletts of £31,553.

Mr Sanfey said his clients' evidence would be that their chief executive, Lanto Synge, had on January 28th, 2000 come to Dublin and was met by Mr Rogers. Mr Synge had inspected and bought a Queen Anne red lacquered bookcase which was in very bad condition.

READ MORE

Counsel said that an organisation called the Art Loss Register was set up in 1991 to keep a register of lost and stolen artefacts. Julian Radcliffe, director and chairman of that organisation, had contacted Malletts in June 2001 when the bureau was exhibited at the Grosvenor House Antique Dealers' Fair. Mr Radcliffe had said his organisation believed the bookcase was stolen in Northern Ireland in 1990 from a Lord Roden who lived near Newcastle, Co Down. The item was withdrawn from the sale.

Mr Synge, perhaps the foremost expert in that period of English furniture, would give evidence that it was a unique piece and the same as the one which was stolen. Malletts had no alternative but to return the bookcase to Lord Roden who repaid the insurance money. The piece was now in the Royal Hospital in Chelsea on loan.

Mr Sanfey said the law on this matter was perfectly straightforward. Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, it was a condition that the seller of an item must have title when passing it on to a purchaser.

Counsel said the defence denied it was agreed to sell the bureau to Malletts and denied that it was a condition of sale that the defendant had a right to sell. The defendant also denied that Malletts had paid £80,000 and denied breach of an agreement.

The defendant also claimed to be "a stranger" to the allegations dealing with the necessity for Malletts to return the bookcase. It was also denied that, at the time of the alleged agreement, the defence knew that due to the condition of the bureau Malletts would have to carry out restoration work.

Contributory negligence is pleaded.

It is also pleaded by the defendant that if Malletts suffered the alleged loss or damage it was in circumstances in which the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen and in which the defendant took all reasonable care. The bookcase was purchased by the defendant in good faith and without notice of any defect or want of title.

Alternatively, the defendant claimed that if Malletts had suffered alleged loss or damage, then it was caused by negligence, breach of duty and breach of contract on the part of Daly and Eacrett Antiques, Francis Street, Dublin and in circumstances not readily foreseeable by the defendant, and where the defendant was not responsible.

In evidence Mr Synge said he had been told the bureau had been in the basement of a Dublin house for a long time. Mr Rogers brought him to a workshop so that he could look at it. It was clear it was a piece worth pursuing. After it was removed from the Grosvenor House exhibition he became persuaded it was stolen. He wanted to recoup his money because they could not possibly sell it.

In cross examination, Mr Gavin Ralston SC, for the defendant, said his client would claim that when Mr Synge came to Dublin he was brought to Francis Street. He asked if Mr Synge was aware that this was not Mr Rogers's premises. Mr Synge said he just knew he had been brought to a workshop.

The hearing before Mr Justice Quirke continues today.