Valuation — Fine art auctioneers and valuers — Unrecognised “sleepers” — Paintings sold at auction — Paintings subsequently attributed to Stubbs — Duty of valuer — Standard of skill — Attribution not exact science — Whether valuer doing job honestly and diligently can be negligent — Appeal by valuers allowed
The appellants are fine art auctioneers and valuers and hold themselves out as experts in the valuation of paintings. In 1985 one of their assistants was shown two paintings by the respondents; the assistant believed they were worth about £30. She showed them to the firm’s consultant, who considered they were worth £30 to £50, and took them to Christie’s, who said nothing favourable. The paintings were sold at auction for £840 to a dealer. He obtained from Sotheby’s expert an attribution to Stubbs, and the paintings were auctioned for £88,000. The respondents’ claim against the appellants in negligence and/or contract was allowed by Simon Brown J (November 23 1988) [1989] 1 EGLR 11, who gave judgment in damages. The appellants appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
It was accepted that (1) the required standard of skill and care allowed for differing views, and even a wrong view without there necessarily being a breach of duty; (2) the standard was to be judged by reference only to what might be expected of the general practitioner, not the specialist; (3) Compliance with the standard was to be judged by the actual circumstances confronting the practitioner at the material time rather than with the benefit of hindsight; but (4) since the valuation of pictures involved an exercise of opinion and judgment and was not an exact science, provided the valuer had done his job honestly and with due diligence the court should be cautious before convicting him of professional negligence merely because he had failed to be the first to spot a “sleeper”.
Hunter v Hanley
1955 SLT 213 applied.
Rupert Jackson QC and John L Powell (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared for the appellants; and Peter Curry QC and John Bowers (instructed by Tuck & Mann, of Dorking) appeared for the respondents.