Court backs £4m claim over stolen da Vinci painting
Disgraced lawyer is allowed to sue duke
A STRUCK-OFF solicitor’s attempt to sue the Duke of Buccleuch for £4.25million over the return of a stolen artwork is to go ahead after a judge rejected an attempt to dismiss the action.
Marshall Ronald is seeking the payout following the recovery of Leonardo da Vinci’s Madonna of the Yarnwinder, which was snatched from the aristocrat’s ancestral home, Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfriesshire, in 2003.
Mr Ronald was at the offices of a Glasgow law firm along with others – including an undercover police officer using the name ‘John Craig’ who was posing as a risk management expert – in 2007 when the picture was handed over.
In 2010, Mr Ronald, of Upholland, Lancashire, was acquitted with
‘Don’t accept any
illegal acts’
others at the High Court in Edinburgh of conspiracy to extort money over the painting’s return.
He then raised an action at the Court of Session seeking the multimillion payout, which the 10th Duke of Buccleuch is contesting. Mr Ronald, 57, has alleged that the aristocrat participated to some extent in a police operation to recover the painting.
He claims this included a letter addressed ‘To whom it may concern’ confirming that John Craig was acting as his (the Duke’s) agent in the recovery of the picture. Mr Ronald has claimed that on August 29, 2007, he entered into an agreement with ‘John Craig’ which said that the Duke would pay him £2million to secure the return of the artwork. This sum allegedly increased to £4.25million a few days later.
Mr Ronald maintains that this is less than 10 per cent of the value of the historic painting. He concedes that he knew the picture has been stolen and said that it was being held by persons whose identities were unknown to him. He was in contact with intermediaries and agreed to pay them £700,000 to secure the release of the picture.
Mr Ronald maintains that he paid out more than £500,000. However, the Duke maintains that ‘John Craig’ had no actual authority to make any form of agreement on his behalf. It is also alleged that the agreement that the former solicitor seeks to rely on is ‘unenforceable as being illegal and contrary to public policy’.
Lawyers for the Duke sought to have the action dismissed at a procedural hearing before Lord Glennie yesterday. Andrew Young, QC, said: ‘Properly viewed, what the pursuer (Mr Ronald) is averring here is an attempt to extort a sum of money.’
But Mr Ronald claimed he had acted in good faith, telling the court: ‘I don’t accept any illegal acts.’
Lord Glennie said: ‘I do not accept that the pursuer’s case is bound to fail on grounds of illegality or public policy.’
It means that the case can now go to a hearing of evidence.