Morin v Bonhams & Brooks Ltd & Anor, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 18, 2003, [2003] ILPr 25,[2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 36,[2003] EWHC 467 (Comm)

Extract

---

Morin v Bonhams & Brooks Ltd & Anor, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 18, 2003, [2003] ILPr 25,[2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 36,[2003] EWHC 467 (Comm)

Case No: 2002 Folio No. 342

Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 467 (Comm)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 18 March 2003

Before:

JONATHAN HIRST QC SITTING AS DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

---------------------------------

Between:

THIERRY MORIN

-and-

(1) BONHAMS & BROOKS LIMITED

(2) BONHAMS & BROOKS S.A.M.

-----------------------------------

MATTHEW PARKER (instructed by JONES DAY GOULDENS) for the Defendants

STEPHAN HOUSEMAN (instructed by TRAVERS SMITH BRAITHWAITE) for the Claimant

Hearing date: 24 February 2003

------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

Mr Hirst:

1. On 21 May 2001 the Claimant, Thierry Morin, attended an auction of historic motor cars and collectors' watches held in Monaco at the Exposition de la Collection de Voitures Anciennes de S.A.S. le Prince de Monaco, and organised by the Second Defendant, Bonhams & Brooks S.A.M. (``B&B Monaco''). M Morin successfully bid FF4,888,200 (equivalent to about £480,000), including buyer's commission, for Lot 245, a 1959 Ferrari 410 Superamerica Series III coupe with coachwork by Pinin Farina (``The Ferrari''). This was a record sale price. After he had got the car back to England, he was advised by Paul Grist, an expert in the restoration of historic motor cars, that the odometer reading of 16,000 kms was false and that the car had probably covered nearer 200,000 kms. In short, it appeared that the car had been ``clocked''.

2. On 19 March 2002, Mr Justice David Steel gave M Morin permission to issue a claim form against Bonhams & Brooks Limited (``B&B London'') and B&B Monaco, and to serve B&B Monaco by personal service on B&B London at their Knightsbridge office. The Claim Form sought the following substantive relief against both defendants.

``rescission of the contract by reason of a misrepresentation made by the First Defendant and/or the Second Defendant alternatively damages in lieu of rescission and an indemnity for costs and expenses and/or damages under s.2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and/or at common law.''

3. Mr Justice Steel has since clarified that the Order he granted did not constitute permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, as this did not appear to be sought. The Defendants had in the meantime applied to the Court, inter alia, to set aside service on B&B Monaco and to stay the proceedings against B&B London. As a result of the clarification of the Order, the parties are agreed that service on B&B Monaco cannot stand unless permission is given to serve B&B Monaco out of the jurisdiction. I therefore have before me (effectively) two applications:

a. An application by M Morin for permission to serve the Claim Form on B&B Monaco out of the jurisdiction:

b. An application by B&B London to stay the proceedings against it.

The Facts

4. I must now explain more about the background to this ca...

See the full content of this document

---