Bankrupt socialite James Stunt loses battle over centuries-old Van Dyck painting

Overview

The High Court has ruled that bankrupt socialite James Stunt - who was once married to the daughter of former Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone - is the owner of an almost 500-year-old portrait painted by Sir Anthony Van Dyck. Geoffrey Stunt, James’s father, had argued that he had been the one to purchase the painting for £600,000 in 2013, putting the painting out of the reach of James’s creditors in his subsequent bankruptcy. The High Court agreed with the Trustees that James had been the contracting buyer and that he did not hold the beneficial interest on trust for his father. While the money used to pay for the painting was drawn on Geoffrey’s account, this was insufficient to rebut the presumption, which was supported by the contemporaneous documentary evidence, that the painting was a gift for James.

Background

In April 2012, James - an avid art collector - approached a representative of Fergus Hall Limited (“FHL”) about potentially purchasing a portrait known as the "Double Portrait of the Cheeke Sisters" which was painted by Sir Anthony Van Dyck sometime around 1640.

There was conflicting evidence about which of James or Geoffrey conducted the negotiations that followed, but the process culminated in a sale of the painting for £600,000 in January 2013. The invoice was addressed to Mr James Stunt and the export licence and shipping documentation also identified the owner as Mr James Stunt. However, the £600,000 purchase price was paid out of an account belonging to Geoffrey.

The painting was delivered to James, and James was held out to be the owner whilst the painting was on loan to Huntington Library. In May 2018, James entered into an agreement with Christies to sell the painting as the owner and caused it to be delivered to the auction house.

In late August 2018, a worldwide freezing order pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was made against James’s assets. The order remains extant, but the painting was released from its ambit in May 2021. In his disclosure of assets statement required in connection with the freezing order, James identified himself as the owner of the painting in September 2018.

Also in September 2018, a bankruptcy petition was presented after James was unable to pay his creditors, and he was declared bankrupt in June 2019. Ian Defty and Adrian Hyde of Begbies Traynor were appointed joint Trustees of the bankruptcy estate. In August 2019, James proposed an IVA which included the painting as an item he owned.

James described these actions as mistakes that took place during a difficult personal period which included the death of his brother, a contentious divorce involving custody issues and a serious cocaine addiction from which he has now been clean for four years.

In April 2022, James’s father Geoffrey started proceedings to claim ownership and delivery of the painting, which the Trustees sought to have stayed. The Trustees then began these proceedings seeking declarations that title to the painting vested in them as trustees in bankruptcy.

The Court’s Decision

The High Court ultimately found that James had been the contracting buyer of the painting and that he did not hold beneficial interest on trust for Geoffrey. The Court was largely persuaded by the myriad of post-agreement evidence suggesting James considered himself to be the owner of the painting. Although the Court had considerable sympathy for James’s position at the time, his plea of mistake had not been made out on the evidence and could not be accepted.

Having found that James was the contracting buyer under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Court then considered the consequence of the fact that Geoffrey had paid for the painting. Geoffrey claimed that he had acquired the painting as a personal investment, and that his payment had created a rebuttable resulting trust relationship.

The Court disagreed, explaining that the father-son relationship meant the presumption of advancement (i.e., the presumption that Geoffrey purchased the painting for James as a gift) had to be rebutted first. The Court found that it was not, pointing out that James had been “able to use his father's black American Express card for very substantial sums” for a variety of purposes. The fact that Geoffrey - “a generous, supportive father who assisted his son through loans” - had paid for the painting was not sufficient to rebut the presumption that it was a gift. Geoffrey’s claims that the painting was a personal investment were simply not supported by the evidence.

Conclusion

As a result, the Court concluded that James was the owner of the painting and that it formed part of the bankruptcy estate.

Judge: I.C.C. Judge Jones

Counsel: Joseph Curl K.C. of 9 Stone Buildings (instructed by Ashfords) for Adrian Hyde of Begbies Traynor as Joint Trustee

Lee Schama of Afridi & Angell (instructed by Knights) for Geoffrey Stunt