Thomson v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd & Ors

A professional who assumes responsibility for information or advice must guard against risks within the scope of that responsibility. An auctioneer which has reasonably reached a confident, unqualified attribution, with no real rather than fanciful doubt, is not required to warn a purchaser of theoretical disagreement or obvious features of an opinion.

The scope of any damages claim must match the breach. An information-provider does not warrant the accuracy of its opinion or bear loss attributable to information it was not required to obtain. The appeal was allowed because the judge's finding of breach was inconsistent with his finding that the unqualified attribution was professionally reasonable.

The claimant bought a pair of vases at a Christie’s auction for almost £2 million. Christie’s had described them as Louis XV, and its special-client representative strongly endorsed their quality. The claimant later alleged that the vases were nineteenth-century imitations and that Christie’s should have warned her of the risk.

Jack J held that the vases were probably eighteenth-century and that Christie’s had reasonably catalogued them without qualification. He nevertheless found that its special relationship with the claimant required further warnings, and held it liable in negligence and under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. He assessed damages by reference to the vases’ probable date: [2004] EWHC 1101 (QB).

Christie’s appealed against liability and damages. The claimant cross-appealed on the date, cataloguing and negligence findings. The central issue was whether a reasonably held unqualified opinion nevertheless required a warning of possible error.

1. Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed. May LJ, with whom Jonathan Parker and Smith LJJ agreed, held that Christie’s was not in breach of duty. The judge’s conclusion that the unqualified description was professionally reasonable and free from any real rather than fanciful doubt could not be reconciled with his later finding that Christie’s should have warned the claimant of uncertainty.

2. Christie’s had assumed a duty of care to the claimant through its special-client relationship. That duty did not require it to state the obvious, or to identify fanciful risks. Once the judge had found that Christie’s had reasonably and confidently concluded that the vases were eighteenth-century, it had no duty to express unreal or theoretical doubts about that conclusion.

3. The reasons relied on by the judge for a further warning were insufficient. The general existence of nineteenth-century copies did not create a real doubt about these vases. It was commonplace that the attribution was an exercise of professional judgment based principally on inspection and research. The catalogue’s overstatements about Italian or Parma connections and Petitot did not affect the justified confidence in the date, nor were they material to the claimant’s decision or the value of the vases.

4. The Court declined to disturb the judge’s composite factual assessment that the vases were eighteenth-century. It would be wrong to isolate individual items of expert evidence and reweigh them on appeal where the conclusion rested on extensive oral expert evidence and an evaluative judgment by the trial judge.

5. On the Court’s alternative analysis of damages, the loss would have been the difference between the price paid and the 1994 auction value had the vases been described as “probably Louis XV”. Damages could not reflect later metallurgical information which Christie’s was not obliged to obtain. As there was no breach, the claimant’s claim under Misrepresentation Act 1967 also failed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed Christie’s appeal and dismissed the claimant’s cross-appeal, setting aside the finding that Christie’s had breached its duty to the claimant: [2005] EWCA Civ 555.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Jack J held that Christie’s had reasonably catalogued the vases as Louis XV, but nevertheless found a breach of a special-client duty and liability under Misrepresentation Act 1967: [2004] EWHC 1101 (QB).