EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 10
Art Fraud: A Recent Case
Emphasises that Providing
Documents to Prove the Provenance
of Ancient Artefacts is Fundamental
by Dr. Angelika Hellweger
In a recent case a judge struck out the defendants’
defence as they failed to comply with their disclosure
obligations. With the defence struck out, the claimants
were awarded summary judgment in the case.
provided to the claimants over the years. The defendants said that they had already spent £77,000 on disclosure and could not afford to comply with the order.
The defendants did not claim that these proceedings
could fairly be resolved without disclosure.
It’s an interesting case of purportedly mis-sold antique
art. The artefacts were bought for millions of dollars
on the basis that they dated back to antiquity. When
the proof of their provenance was not forthcoming,
there were doubts over their actual worth.
Although disclosure is a notoriously expensive
process, the court reminded the defendants that they
cannot choose to avoid their obligations. A party is required to disclose the documents and it is a duty owed
to the Court (PD 57AD at 3.1). It is never appropriate
for a party simply to refuse to give disclosure. Even
more so in this case, where the defendants, as dealers
in antiquities, have documents relevant to how they
obtained the objects and what they knew about their
authenticity
Without the relevant disclosure, the claimants could
not properly pursue their claims and the judge took
the draconian step to strike out the defence and award
summary judgement to the claimants.
Read the full judgment here: Qatar Investment and
Projects Development Holding Co v Phoenix Ancient
Art S.A. &Ors [2025] EWHC 898 (KB) https://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/assets/Uploads/ae4d561279/Qatar-Investment-and-Projects-Development-Holding-Co-v-Phoenix-Anc
ient-Art-S.A.-Ors.pdf
The judge found the evidence that the defendants
were so impecunious that they could not provide disclosure to be “incomplete” and “unconvincing”. The
judge also noted that the defendants showed a pattern of failing to comply with court orders throughout
the proceedings.
Brief facts
The Qatari claimants brought two sets of proceedings
(which were managed together) which relate to purportedly ancient artifacts that they purchased from
Phoenix Ancient Art, a Switzerland based art dealer,
ten years ago.
Surprising in the extreme
The judge found it “surprising in the extreme”, that
the Defendants had not (at the very least) disclosed
documentation that demonstrates that the allegations
of fraud and misrepresentation were unjustified.
Whatever their financial difficulties, they should have
been able to do that, if such documents existed.
The artefacts were:
l A small chalcedony statuette figure of the goddess
Nike purportedly dating back to the fourth century,
which the claimants purchased for $2.2 million.
As expert and experienced dealers in ancient
artefacts, the defendants must have known that the
value of those artefacts depended on proof of provenance and known where to find the documents that
established provenance without difficulty.
l Head of Alexander the Great as Kerakles, purport-
edly dated to the first century (purchased for $3
million)
l A small chalcedony cameo known as the Phalera
The claimants said that the defendants sold the
artefacts knowing that the provenance of the artefacts
were false, or having no honest belief in its truth.
Too impecunious to provide disclosure?
Defence struck out, and summary judgment granted
The claimants said that the lack of disclosure made a
fair trial of the issues impossible. If the contractual
provenance documents were genuine, there must be
documents in the defendants’ possession which
provide contemporaneous support for that case.
The crux of this hearing was the defendants’ refusal to
provide full disclosure. The reasons they gave were
that they could not afford the disclosure exercise and
that relevant emails and documents had already been
As the judge found that the breach of the disclosure
obligations was deliberate, serious, prolonged and inexcusable, the whole of the defendants’ defences were
struck out.
with an Imperial Eagle (purchased for $262,705)
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
8
AUGUST/SEPT 2025
