FAP ART MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO KG v INIGO PHILBRICK and Anor

FAP ART MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO KG v INIGO PHILBRICK and Anor

The Collateral Agreement was a binding contract supported by consideration, but the Claimants failed to perfect their security interest under New York law as they did not have unequivocal, absolute and notorious possession of the artworks, nor authenticated records from the storage companies. Ownership of items No. 3 and 10 was established by evidence of purchase and payment, but claims based on the Collateral Agreement for other artworks failed.

Parties
Creditor: FAP Art Management GMBH & Co KG; Debtor: Inigo Philbrick; Debtor: Inigo Philbrick Ltd; HCEO: Equivo Ltd; HCEO: Nicholas Davy Todd; Third Party Claimant: Aiden Fine Arts Inc; Third Party Claimant: V&A Collection LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under CPR 85.5 / Judgment
Outcome
Claimants succeed in part; proprietary claims based on Collateral Agreement fail; ownership of items 3 and 10 established; 50% share in items 1 and 2 undisputed.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Interest, Security Interest, Perfection of Security, Art Fraud, Third Party Claims, New York Law, Uniform Commercial Code
Civil Enforcement Commercial Law Proprietary Interest Security Interest Perfection of Security Art Fraud Third Party Claims New York Law +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FAP Art Management GMBH & Co KG

Creditor

Inigo Philbrick

Debtor

Inigo Philbrick Ltd

Debtor

Equivo Ltd

HCEO

Nicholas Davy Todd

HCEO

Aiden Fine Arts Inc

Third Party Claimant

V&A Collection LLC

Third Party Claimant

Procedural Posture

Application Under CPR 85.5 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Collateral Agreement gave the Claimants proprietary interests in specified artworks.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants owned item No. 3 as a consequence of payment.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants owned item No. 10 as a result of a prior purchase.

Ratio Decidendi

The Collateral Agreement was a binding contract supported by consideration, but the Claimants failed to perfect their security interest under New York law as they did not have unequivocal, absolute and notorious possession of the artworks, nor authenticated records from the storage companies. Ownership of items No. 3 and 10 was established by evidence of purchase and payment, but claims based on the Collateral Agreement for other artworks failed.

Court Disposition

Claimants succeed in part; proprietary claims based on Collateral Agreement fail; ownership of items 3 and 10 established; 50% share in items 1 and 2 undisputed.

Orders

  • Claimants entitled to 50% share in items 1 and 2.
  • Aiden is owner of items 3 and 10.