Coleridge v Sotheby's

Coleridge v Sotheby's

Sotheby’s was not negligent in its appraisal of the Coleridge Collar as post-restoration 17th century, nor in its auction estimate, as a responsible body of appraisers would have acted similarly. However, Sotheby’s was negligent in advising Lord Coleridge to sell privately at £35,000 rather than the standard private treaty value of £50,000. Damages are awarded for the difference.

Parties
Claimant: William Duke Coleridge, 5th Baron Coleridge of Ottery St Mary; Defendant: Sotheby’s
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim partly allowed
Legal Topics
Hedley Byrne Duty, Auctioneer's Duty of Care, Valuation Negligence, Damages Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Duke Coleridge, 5th Baron Coleridge of Ottery St Mary

Claimant

Sotheby’s

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Whether Sotheby’s breached its duty of care in appraising and advising on the sale of the Coleridge Collar
  2. 2 Whether the auction estimate and private treaty advice were negligent
  3. 3 Whether the contract terms limited or excluded liability

Ratio Decidendi

Sotheby’s was not negligent in its appraisal of the Coleridge Collar as post-restoration 17th century, nor in its auction estimate, as a responsible body of appraisers would have acted similarly. However, Sotheby’s was negligent in advising Lord Coleridge to sell privately at £35,000 rather than the standard private treaty value of £50,000. Damages are awarded for the difference.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant for £15,000 (difference between £50,000 and £35,000)
  • Court to hear parties on interest and costs