Dealer wins £12.5k over stolen Master
Compensation for expert after painting was returned to owner
IT’S the kind of painting every dealer wants to find.
Bought for £1,100, the still life of a parrot pecking at fruit was estimated to fetch £25,000.
But it sparked a bizarre row after police arrived at art dealer Ian Ingram’s door, told him the painting was stolen and returned it to its owner, Lady Caroline Lingard.
Yesterday, it emerged Mr Ingram had still turned a profit on his investment – after receiving £12,500 compensation for the 18th century Old Master.
The 72-year-old claimed the painting was by Transylvanian Saxon artist Tobias Stranover and was worth £25,000.
He sued Iain M Smith Auctioneers & Valuers for £23,632 profit he believes he lost when the painting was returned to its owner.
Perth Sheriff Court was told the auction house has agreed to pay Mr Ingram £12,500 – and that Brian Kerr, who put the painting up for sale, will pay the auction house the same amount.
In a further twist, it was said Mr Ingram did not share an independent valuation of only £10,000.
Although the parties involved have settled the main action over Stranover’s Still Life – Fruit and Parrot, they are now locked in a battle over who should pay costs.
Mr Ingram bought the painting at auction in Scone, Perthshire, in April, 2010. But his plan to sell it on for a large profit ended when police told him it had been stolen.
Mr Ingram, of Perth, said: ‘I buy regularly from auction. And there, in front of the rostrum, was this painting. It did not seem like something you usually see.
‘I arranged to bid for it on the phone and, realising its worth, I kept it. I really loved the picture.’
His court action said: ‘The painting had been put up for sale by Brian Kerr. The auctioneer acted as his agent. Mr Ingram was unaware of the identity of the seller until several years after the sale. Unknown to the auctioneer, the third party did not own the painting.
‘On January 13, 2013 police contacted the pursuer and questioned him about the painting. Until that point, Mr Ingram was unaware there was any problem with the painting. He considered himself to be its rightful owner.
‘Police suspected Mr Kerr had stolen the painting and took possession of it as evidence in a criminal prosecution against Mr Kerr.
‘Investigations revealed the painting belonged to Lady Lingard. Mr Kerr had no right or title to the painting. He was not acting as agent for Lady Lingard. She did not consent to the sale.’
But the criminal case against Mr Kerr, of Perth, was dropped.
The auction house said the seller had signed a form to say he was the rightful owner of the painting and later claimed it had been included in a sale in error when clearing one of his storage units.
Sheriff William Wood said he would make his decision on costs at a later date.
The auction house did not wish to comment.