Journal Detail back to listing
Art fraud: A recent case emphasises that providing documents to prove the provenance of ancient artefacts is fundamental
- Sep 18, 2025
- Latest Journal
by Dr. Angelika Hellweger
In a recent case a judge struck out the defendants’ defence as they failed to comply with their disclosure obligations. With the defence struck out, the claimants were awarded summary judgment in the case.
It’s an interesting case of purportedly mis-sold antique art. The artefacts were bought for millions of dollars on the basis that they dated back to antiquity. When the proof of their provenance was not forthcoming, there were doubts over their actual worth.
Without the relevant disclosure, the claimants could not properly pursue their claims and the judge took the draconian step to strike out the defence and award summary judgement to the claimants.
Read the full judgment here: Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Co v Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. &Ors [2025] EWHC 898 (KB) https://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/assets/Uploads/ae4d561279/Qatar-Investment-and-Projects-Development-Holding-Co-v-Phoenix-Ancient-Art-S.A.-Ors.pdf
Brief facts
The Qatari claimants brought two sets of proceedings (which were managed together) which relate to purportedly ancient artifacts that they purchased from Phoenix Ancient Art, a Switzerland based art dealer, ten years ago.
The artefacts were:
- A small chalcedony statuette figure of the goddess Nike purportedly dating back to the fourth century, which the claimants purchased for $2.2 million.
- Head of Alexander the Great as Kerakles, purportedly dated to the first century (purchased for $3 million)
- A small chalcedony cameo known as the Phalera with an Imperial Eagle (purchased for $262,705)
The claimants said that the defendants sold the artefacts knowing that the provenance of the artefacts were false, or having no honest belief in its truth. Too impecunious to provide disclosure?
The crux of this hearing was the defendants’ refusal to provide full disclosure. The reasons they gave were that they could not afford the disclosure exercise and that relevant emails and documents had already been provided to the claimants over the years. The defendants said that they had already spent £77,000 on disclosure and could not afford to comply with the order. The defendants did not claim that these proceedings could fairly be resolved without disclosure.
Although disclosure is a notoriously expensive process, the court reminded the defendants that they cannot choose to avoid their obligations. A party is required to disclose the documents and it is a duty owed to the Court (PD 57AD at 3.1). It is never appropriate for a party simply to refuse to give disclosure. Even more so in this case, where the defendants, as dealers in antiquities, have documents relevant to how they obtained the objects and what they knew about their authenticity
The judge found the evidence that the defendants were so impecunious that they could not provide disclosure to be “incomplete” and “unconvincing”. The judge also noted that the defendants showed a pattern of failing to comply with court orders throughout the proceedings.
Surprising in the extreme
The judge found it “surprising in the extreme”, that the Defendants had not (at the very least) disclosed documentation that demonstrates that the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were unjustified. Whatever their financial difficulties, they should have been able to do that, if such documents existed.
As expert and experienced dealers in ancient artefacts, the defendants must have known that the value of those artefacts depended on proof of provenance and known where to find the documents that established provenance without difficulty.
Defence struck out, and summary judgment granted
The claimants said that the lack of disclosure made a fair trial of the issues impossible. If the contractual provenance documents were genuine, there must be documents in the defendants’ possession which provide contemporaneous support for that case.
As the judge found that the breach of the disclosure obligations was deliberate, serious, prolonged and in- excusable, the whole of the defendants’ defences were struck out.
That being so, the claimants were entitled to summary judgment as the defendants had no real prospect of succeeding on their defence given that (i) they were debarred from defending, and (ii) there was no other compelling reasons why the case should be disposed of at trial.
Analysis
This case is a reminder that disclosure is fundamental to the proper conduct of civil litigation. Refusal to give disclosure will undermine the pursuit of the causes of action.
There are now several ways to provide disclosure to curtail the costs of the exercise. Models A-E under practice direction 57AD give a range of options for disclosure that can be used to reduce the number of documents involved in the exercise, if both parties agree.
However, it was clear in this case that the judge was unconvinced by the arguments of impecuniosity from the defendants. In further context, the second and third defendants had been prosecuted in Switzerland and pleaded guilty to bringing artefacts illegally, by forged documents into the country[1] and selling artefacts with falsified provenance. This surely did not help their position in this case.
This matter was a deliberate breach of the rules, which hampered the claimants pursuit of their claims. On the facts before him, the judge took the draconian step to strike out the defence and grant summary judgment in favour of the claimants, and took a dim view of the defendants attempts to avoid their disclosure obligations.
Reference source
https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/geneva-court-finds-ali-aboutaaum-guilty-illegally-importing-antiquities-2247910
About The Author
Dr. Angelika Hellweger
Legal Director
angelika.hellweger@rahmanravelli.co.uk
+44 (0)203 597 9783
Angelika is a specialist in international, high-level economic crime investigations and large-scale commercial disputes. She has widely-recognised expertise in representing corporates and conglomerates in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and United States.