Antiques firm awarded #111,533 in action over bookcase ownership

A leading firm of London antique dealers yesterday secured an award of £111,533 from the High Court arising from its claim that…

A leading firm of London antique dealers yesterday secured an award of £111,533 from the High Court arising from its claim that it had purchased an allegedly stolen 18th-century bureau/bookcase from a Dublin firm.

Malletts of New Bond Street, London, bought the bureau/bookcase from Rory Rogers, of Ballsbridge Gardens, Shelbourne Road, Dublin, in January/February 2000.

Mallets claimed the bookcase was stolen from the Lord Roden estate in Newcastle, Co Down, in 1990, and that Mr Rogers never had the right to sell the bookcase and never had any interest or title to it.

The action was for the recovery of the purchase price of £80,000 and the recovery of costs of restoration by Mallets of £31,533.

READ MORE

Mr Rogers had told the court he had contacted a representative of Malletts and they both went to Daly and Eacrett Antiques, Francis Street, Dublin, to view the bookcase.

There was a discussion about where the bookcase came from, and they were told it came from a house in the west of Ireland and that Mr Daly had collected it.

Mr Justice John Quirke in a reserved judgment yesterday held that Mr Rogers in January/February 2000 did not have the right to sell the bookcase to Malletts because he did not own the bookcase. It was the property of Lord Roden, and Mr Rogers had no title and therefore no title passed from Mr Rogers to Malletts.

He said Daly and Eacrett also had no title to the bookcase. He held Malletts was entitled to the return of the £80,000 which it paid for it.

Mr Justice Quirke said Mr Rogers had fairly and candidly acknowledged that, at the time he had agreed to sell the bookcase, he knew that the express purpose for which Malletts required the bookcase was to carry out expensive restoration work to put it on view and sell it. The bookcase had now been returned to Lord Roden's estate, and Malletts was at a loss of £31,533.

It had not been disputed on behalf of Mr Rogers that this £31,533 loss had been a direct consequence of Mr Rogers's albeit unwitting breach of contract.

The judge held that Malletts was also entitled to recover the £31,533.