Thomson v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd and Another: CA 12 May 2005

Claim against auctioneers – antique vases – possible copies. Both parties appealed against elements of the judgment.
May LJ said: ‘But, even accepting that individual points such as these are amenable to judicial appellate evaluation whatever the expert opinion, no appellate court should cherry pick a few such points so as to disagree with a composite first instance decision which, in the nature of a jig-saw, depended on the interlocking of a very large number of individual pieces, each the subject of oral expert evidence which the appellate court has not heard.’

Judges:

May, Jonathan Parker, Smith LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 555, [2005] PNLR 38

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromThomson v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd and Another QBD 2004
Two urns had been auctioned as ‘a pair of Louis XV porphyry and gilt-bronze two-handled vases’. The buyer claimed that this was false. The parties agreed Christie’s had impliedly represented that it had reasonable grounds for its opinion.

Cited by:

CitedWheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd CA 18-Oct-2018
Leave to appeal – refused – claim under indemnity
Coulson LJ, disposing of the application for permission to appeal after oral hearing, addressed the question of appeals against a judge’s evaluation of expert evidence:
‘A first instance . .
CitedKynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Ltd CA 19-Oct-2022
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.224840