James Stunt, the bankrupt former son-in-law of Bernie Ecclestone, has lost a High Court dispute over the ownership of a £4 million Van Dyck portrait.
The socialite and entrepreneur attempted to distance himself from the purchase of the 1640 painting, titled The Cheeke Sisters, in a tussle with the trustees in his own bankruptcy.
He said his father Geoffrey Stunt had bought the artwork for £600,000 in 2013, and told the High Court: “I did show an interest in the painting but I madeclear it was not for me.”
However Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Clive Jones concluded on Friday: “In my judgment on the balance of probability, Mr James Stunt was the contracting buyer under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.”
He added that the painting “forms part of the bankruptcy estate”.
Stunt, who was previously married to Petra Ecclestone, the daughter of ex-Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone, was declared bankrupt in June 2019.
The High Court was told that the businessman expressed interested in the painting by Sir Anthony Van Dyck when he saw it in 2012 but later recommended it to his father after deciding against purchasing it.
“It was negotiated fully by my father and my father paid by cheque”, he insisted.
However, the bankruptcy trustees said Stunt was the real owner of the painting.
The Cheeke Sisters: Essex, Countess of Manchester and Anne, Lady Rich waspainted around 1640 and is one of a small collection of double portraitspainted by Van Dyck.
The artist was born in modern-day Belgium and came to work in England in 1632at the invitation of King Charles I.
In his ruling, Judge Jones highlighted that Geoffrey Stunt had no paperwork concerning the purchase of the painting, he did not take possession of the artwork, and “would not be taking any real interest in it”.
“Mr Geoffrey Stunt’s recollection has to be questioned in the absence of him apparently not even having given the painting any real thought throughout 2013, 2014 and 2015”, said the judge.
The fact that payment was made by cheque by Mr Geoffrey Stunt on its own establishes no more than that he chose to pay for the contractual liability of the buyer.
“It raises potential support for his evidence that he was the buyer but it is not the only possible explanation.
“Alternative possible explanations are that he chose to gift or lend the money to his son or that his son was acting as his agent.
“The fact that someone pays the invoice does not establish them to be the buyer for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.”
The court also heard evidence that Stunt had the ability to use his father’s American Express card, and continued to receive a monthly allowance that had been in place since he was at school.
