Amanda Claire Marian Feilding or Charteris, Countess of Wemyss and March & Anor v Simon C Dickinson Limited

Amanda Claire Marian Feilding or Charteris, Countess of Wemyss and March & Anor v Simon C Dickinson Limited

Permission to appeal was refused because the contractual duty argument was a new point not pleaded or argued at trial, and the negligence claim failed as there was no real prospect that a further pre-sale discussion would have led to a different result. The defendant's actions were not negligent, and the trustees would have followed the defendant's advice regardless. There was no basis to challenge the judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Loss of Chance, Art Attribution, Appeals Procedure
Tort Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Duty of Care Negligence Loss of Chance Art Attribution Appeals Procedure

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached a contractual or tortious duty to the trustees in the sale of the painting
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to consult an expert or warn the trustees before sale
  3. 3 Whether the principles of 'loss of chance' apply to the assessment of loss

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the contractual duty argument was a new point not pleaded or argued at trial, and the negligence claim failed as there was no real prospect that a further pre-sale discussion would have led to a different result. The defendant's actions were not negligent, and the trustees would have followed the defendant's advice regardless. There was no basis to challenge the judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused