Countess of Wemyss and March & Anor v Simon C. Dickinson Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 724 (23 June 2023)

Countess of Wemyss and March & Anor v Simon C. Dickinson Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 724 (23 June 2023)

Permission to appeal was refused because the contractual duty argument was a new point not pleaded or argued below, and the negligence claim failed as there was no real prospect of showing that the defendant's advice or conduct was negligent or that a different process would have led to a different outcome. The trustees would have followed the defendant's advice, and the attribution and sale price were not shown to be negligent.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 724
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Amanda Claire Marian Feilding or Charteris, Countess of Wemyss and March; Claimant/appellant: Vilma Ramsay; Defendant/respondent: Simon C. Dickinson Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Negligence, Loss of Chance, Duties of Art Dealers, Attribution of Artwork
Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Breach of Duty Negligence Loss of Chance Duties of Art Dealers Attribution of Artwork

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Claire Marian Feilding or Charteris, Countess of Wemyss and March

Claimant/appellant

Vilma Ramsay

Claimant/appellant

Simon C. Dickinson Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant art dealer owed a contractual duty to report back and advise/warn the trustees before sale
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached tortious duties to warn or advise regarding attribution and sale of the painting
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was negligent in not consulting an external expert or in the attribution of the painting

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the contractual duty argument was a new point not pleaded or argued below, and the negligence claim failed as there was no real prospect of showing that the defendant's advice or conduct was negligent or that a different process would have led to a different outcome. The trustees would have followed the defendant's advice, and the attribution and sale price were not shown to be negligent.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused