The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim regarding a damaged sculpture.
The trial judge found that the purported assignment of the sculpture to the appellant was invalid under s. 53(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, as the sculpture had been pledged to the respondent as collateral for an outstanding debt.
The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings, including the valuation of the sculpture based on expert testimony and the conclusion that the respondent owed no duty of care to the appellant when the sculpture was damaged.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
