Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

In the Times today, Gotha City v Sotheby's is the stuff of spy thrillers. It concerned a claim by the Federal Republic of Germany to recover a painting which was looted by the Russians from the ducal family of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha in Germany in 1946, and which later found its way back to the West, passing through various hands before it was put up for sale at Sotheby's in 1992. The remedies sought by the FRG, which claimed ownership of the painting (the City of Gotha asserted possessory title), were declaratory relief, an order of delivery up, and/or damages for conversion. The main issues in the case were (i) whether the FRG could establish title to the painting, and if so (ii) whether its claim was time-barred under the German law of limitation. Moses J held for the FRG on both issues.

According to the Times reporter, Moses J stated that the FRG's claim was 'a restitutionary proprietary claim to protect and enforce rights deriving from the plaintiffs' ownership of the painting', and that 'assertion of those rights depended on the plaintiffs' assertion of title.' The case has not yet reached LEXIS, and it is unclear from the Times report exactly what he meant by the word 'restitutionary' here. Nor is it clear whether he viewed the plaintiffs' claim as founded upon equitable or common law principles (though we may note that the case was heard in QBD). It looks like a vindicatio to me, though ('Please say, O Court, that the painting is ours' - to paraphrase Peter Birks on Macmillan v Bishopsgate in [1997] NZLRev at p 650).

Charles
_____________________________
Dr Charles Mitchell
Lecturer in Law
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS
tel: 0171 873 2290
fax: 0171 873 2465