Döser v Capriles López: High Court upholds owner's title to €750,000 Porsche 911 RS

The High Court has declared a German businessman the owner of a 1973 Porsche 911 2.7 RS Touring worth about €750,000, finding that the Venezuelan collector who bought it through an intermediary could not establish authority, ratification or good faith.

In Döser v Capriles López [2026] EWHC 2570 (KB), Master Šabić KC rejected defences based on actual and apparent authority, ratification and section 2 of the Factors Act 1889 after a three-day trial.

Oliver Döser bought the car in 2019 for €482,000. In 2022 it was sent to England with his authority so that Richard Edwards could arrange its sale as part of a three-car deal valued at £2.2m, with the Porsche priced at £850,000. Unknown to Mr Döser, Mr Edwards was negotiating separately with the son-in-law of Miguel Ángel Capriles López. The car was invoiced to Mr Capriles for £516,750 in May 2022 and shipped to Lisbon. Mr Döser was never paid. Mr Edwards, an undischarged bankrupt, did not give evidence.

Authority and ratification

The Master found that Mr Döser held title before the sale and that Mr Edwards had no actual authority to sell at that price, to release the car unpaid or to conceal the transaction. Authority extends only to acting honestly in the principal's interests, applying Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc, and Mr Edwards' concealment, shrinking price and false accounts of the car's whereabouts ran against those interests.

Apparent authority failed because there was no evidence of any representation by Mr Döser to Mr Capriles or those acting for him. Consent to inspections and new number plates amounted only to entrusting the car. Nor did commission paid to an associate of Mr Döser amount to ratification. It related to all three cars, and neither man had full knowledge of the sale to Mr Capriles.

Factors Act defence

Mr Capriles bore the burden under section 2(1) of showing a disposition in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent. The Master held he could not. No registration document was supplied despite assurances of a clean one, the buyer's side gave inconsistent accounts of who owned the car, invoices came from several names and entities, and the price fell without explanation. Mr Edwards had also sought to disguise the source of funds from UK banks.

On good faith and notice, the Master concluded that Mr Capriles had notice of the want of authority or wilfully shut his eyes to it. His side had voiced concern about title, yet no inquiries followed. An inspection report by his mechanic, which was not produced, was inferred to contain unfavourable material. A request to supply a Spanish address for the bank invoice, because UK compliance had become difficult, was a further red flag.

Mr Capriles was assessed as evasive and his son-in-law as less than frank, while Mr Döser was accepted as truthful on the key issues. The Master criticised disclosure, noting that a large volume of messages with the mechanic emerged less than two weeks before trial.

A declaration of ownership will be made. Mr Döser had primarily sought damages rather than delivery, and the parties are to agree the value of repairs funded by Mr Capriles and the terms of the order.

Peter Webster, instructed by Wilmot & Co Solicitors LLP, appeared for Mr Döser. Daniel Fletcher, instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP, appeared for Mr Capriles.