Qatari sheikh wins £4.2m lawsuit in opposition to outstanding London vendor John Eskenazi

A British excessive courtroom choose has dominated in favour of the Qatari sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Al Thani, who introduced a authorized case in opposition to the London-based John Eskenazi, alleging that seven artefacts he purchased from the vendor had been fakes.

The objects had been bought for a complete of £4.2m throughout 2014 and 2015. Eskenazi, who specialises in Indian, Gandharan, Himalayan and South-East Asian artistic endeavors, was requested by Al Thani to take the objects again and refund the acquisition worth, following his doubts over their authenticity.

The sheikh and his firm, Qatar funding & Tasks Growth Holding (QIPCO), filed the lawsuit in July. The case hinged on whether or not the works had been, actually, pretend. A further fraud declare for one object—a Hari Hara sandstone statue bought for $2.2m; described within the sale bill as relationship to seventh century and originating from current day Vietnam—was additionally made, alleging that Eskenazi knew the work was pretend on the level of sale.

In a fancy and prolonged ruling, the choose, Richard Jacobs, didn’t agree that the Hari Hara fraud was dedicated, however did rule that the objects had been all inauthentic, and that the vendor didn’t have “cheap grounds” for the unqualified opinion that he had provided the customer.

A spokesman for John Eskenazi says: “[He] and his household have suffered years of psychological anguish and nervousness on account of this litigation. He’s subsequently extraordinarily happy that the courtroom has dismissed in its entirety the Sheikh’s case of fraud and has accepted that these objects had been offered in good religion.”

A consultant for Pinsent Masons, which represented the claimant stated: “QIPCO is happy that the courtroom has dominated in its favour and confirmed their long-held beliefs concerning every of the seven objects included in these proceedings. Whereas it’s a matter of remorse to QIPCO that they felt it essential to take this motion in opposition to John Eskenazi Ltd, they felt it was necessary to pursue this case as a matter of precept.”

All through the trial, Eskenazi maintained that each one however one of many objects (he later agreed that one of many items, the Serpent Bracelet, was pretend) had been real. Eskenazi’s consultant says: “Finally, the courtroom has chosen to simply accept the view of 1 group of consultants over one other’s”.

Given the choose’s ruling over the Serpent Bracelet (offered as first century BCE to first century CE ), the Hari Hara statue, Head of a Goddess (offered as second or third century), Head of Dionysus (offered as round second century), a Gandharan Frieze (offered as third century), a Head of Bodhisattva (offered as fourth century) and the Krodha (offered as fifth to sixth century), the sheikh is now entitled to the total quantity he paid for the objects, plus damages for negligence.

The decision is prone to make an impression on the artwork world, given Eskenazi’s outstanding repute inside the market, which has seen him construct collections with main museums and people. The British sculptor Anish Kapoor tells The Artwork Newspaper: “He’s doubtless the best vendor of historical Indian artwork on the earth and his observe document is impeccable… I ask collectors and others to evaluate the whole lot John has carried out during the last 5 many years and never this irrelevant courtroom case.”