Friday, May 23, 2008
The Art Loss Register: A Correction
In my comment piece about the Aziz Kurtha v Michael Marks case, which I filed on 27 March 2008 (Due Diligence is just a ruse), I stated that in his judgement Mr Justice Tugenhadt had "admonished the Art Loss Register for being economical with the actualité".
Julian Radcliffe, Chairman of the ALR, has written to me to request that I clarify that Mr Justice Tugenhadt made no such admonition. The ALR's counsel, Christopher A. Marinello, has kindly sent me a copy of the judgement, which I have now read in full. I am happy to acknowledge that no such "admonition" was made and in the interest of clarification I quote from the relevant paragraph of the judgement, which reads as follows:
79. "After Mr Marks had paid the search fee, he spoke to Mr Radcliffe. It is common ground that Mr Radcliffe told Mr Marks that if Mr Marks were to buy the Paintings, he, Mr Radcliffe, had a client who was interested in buying them from Mr Marks. Mr Marks asked Mr Radcliffe whether there was a problem with good title, and Mr Radcliffe said that there was not. It is common ground, and Mr Radcliffe accepts, that he misled Mr Marks. He explained in court his reasons for doing this, but I do not set them out. They are not material to the issues I have to decide."