High Court rules against Phoenix Art in antiquities fraud case

On 11 April 2025, the High Court of Justice in London's King's Bench Division delivered a judgment in the case of Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Co v Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. & Ors (EWHC 898 (KB)). The proceedings notably encompass intricate questions surrounding the purchase of purportedly ancient artefacts and the subsequent claims of misrepresentation, fraud, and authenticity. The claimants, Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Company (QIPCO) and His Highness Sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Al Thani, initiated two separate sets of proceedings against the defendants, including Phoenix Ancient Art S.A., Ali Aboutaam, Hicham Aboutaam, Roland Ansermet, and Petrarch LLC. These legal actions were consolidated due to their interconnected nature, both revolving around artefacts allegedly purchased over ten years ago.

The first action, initiated in 2020, pertains to a chalcedony statuette of the goddess Nike, valued at USD 2.2 million, claimed to be a modern forgery. This action, referred to as the ‘Nike Action’, extends beyond simple contractual disagreements over sale terms to encompass broader implications of fraud relating to provenance documentation. Meanwhile, the 2023 action involves the Head of Alexander the Great as Herakles and a chalcedony cameo known as the Phalera, purchased for a collective USD 3.3 million. The claimants contend that these items were sold based on fraudulent provenance documents which the defendants knew to be false at the time of sale. This dual claim revolves around intricate interpretations of contract law and the authenticity of ancient artefacts.

During the hearings, a pressing issue emerged concerning the defendants' failure to disclose necessary documentation related to the artefacts' provenance, critical in determining the authenticity and legality of the sales. The claimants argued that this lack of disclosure fundamentally undermined their ability to conduct a fair trial and challenged the defendants' credibility. In a significant ruling, Mr Justice Garnham struck out the defences of the Phoenix defendants, who had refused to comply with court orders to disclose evidence. The judge stated that their non-compliance was “deliberate, serious, prolonged and inexcusable”, effectively resulting in judgement against them. He asserted that the court must ensure that legal proceedings are conducted fairly and that all parties adhere to their legal obligations.

This ruling sets a critical precedent regarding the treatment of disclosure violations in civil proceedings, particularly involving complex cases of fraud and misrepresentation. The judge noted that without proper disclosure, the court could not adequately assess the merits of the case, leading to potentially unjust outcomes. The judgement reflects the judiciary's increasingly stringent stance on disclosure issues, particularly in cases involving high-value artefacts and the potential for fraud. Legal analysts suggest this case may influence future cases regarding the acquisition and sale of antiquities, emphasising the need for transparency in provenance documentation.

Additionally, the possibility of summary judgment continues to loom, highlighting the potential for expedited resolutions based on the merits of a case rather than prolonged trials. The court underlines that those who risk legal action surrounding high-value transactions must meticulously adhere to all disclosure expectations, a reminder to all in the art and antiquities market about the growing scrutiny they face. In conclusion, the unfolding case between Qatar Investment and the Phoenix defendants underlines the convoluted nature of legal issues surrounding art transactions, significantly drawing attention to the necessity of transparency, authenticity, and adherence to procedural requirements in the world of antiquities.