Wilmots Litigation succeeds in High Court classic Porsche ownership dispute

OLIVER DÖSER v MIGUEL ÁNGEL CAPRILES LÓPEZ [2026] EWHC 2570 (KB)

Wilmots Litigation successfully acted for Oliver Döser in his High Court claim concerning ownership of a valuable 1973 Porsche 911 2.7 RS.

Wilmots instructed Peter Webster of Essex Court Chambers to represent Mr Döser.

Following trial, the High Court found in favour of Mr Döser, rejecting the Defendant’s arguments that he had acquired good title to the Porsche through principles of agency or under the Factors Act 1889.

The decision is of particular interest to dealers, collectors and purchasers of valuable classic cars and provides an important reminder of the risks involved in purchasing a vehicle through an intermediary without properly establishing that person’s authority to sell. This is even more so where that intermediary is Richard Edwards, a documented fraudster.

Background

Mr Döser purchased the 1973 Porsche 911 in 2019.

He subsequently authorised Richard Edwards to transport the vehicle to England with a view to a possible sale. However, Mr Edwards went on to sell the Porsche to Miguel Ángel Capriles López, a vintage car collector, for £516,750 and arranged for it to be delivered to Lisbon. The purchase was negotiated on the Defendant’s behalf by his son-in-law, Mr Rosales.

Mr Döser maintained that Mr Edwards had no authority to sell the Porsche on the terms agreed and commenced proceedings seeking a declaration that he remained its owner, together with delivery up of the vehicle or damages.

The Defendant’s case

The Defendant argued that he had nevertheless acquired good title to the Porsche.

His case was advanced on a number of alternative grounds. He argued that Mr Edwards had actual or apparent authority to sell the vehicle, that Mr Döser had subsequently ratified the transaction or, alternatively, that title had passed to him pursuant to section 2(1) of the Factors Act 1889.

The High Court rejected each of those arguments.

Actual and apparent authority

The Court found that Mr Edwards did not have actual authority to sell the Porsche at the price agreed or to release the vehicle without payment. His concealment of the negotiations and transfer of the vehicle was contrary to Mr Döser’s interests.

The Defendant’s argument based upon apparent authority also failed.

Apparent authority requires a representation by the principal to the third party that the agent possesses the relevant authority. The fact that Mr Döser had entrusted the Porsche to Mr Edwards and had permitted inspection of the vehicle, or the preparation of an inspection report, did not give Mr Edwards authority to sell the Porsche at a price of his choosing.

The Court also rejected the Defendant’s argument that the transaction had subsequently been ratified. Ratification required knowledge of the material circumstances. Mr Döser did not know the identity of the purchaser, the price agreed or that possession of his Porsche had been transferred.

The Factors Act 1889

Of particular importance to the classic car trade was the Defendant’s alternative reliance upon section 2(1) of the Factors Act 1889.

In order to obtain protection under the Act, the Defendant needed to establish, amongst other matters, that the disposition had taken place in the ordinary course of the business of a mercantile agent and that he had acted in good faith and without notice of the agent’s lack of authority.

The Court found that those requirements had not been satisfied.

One significant issue was the absence of the vehicle’s registration documents. Although the Court did not find that missing registration documents were necessarily conclusive, their absence was an important consideration when deciding whether the transaction had taken place in the ordinary course of business.

There were also a number of other unusual features surrounding the transaction, including the explanation given regarding the missing documents, unexplained payment entities, bank compliance arrangements and aspects of the price negotiations.

Taken together, the Court found that the transaction had not been conducted in the ordinary course of business.

Good faith and warning signs

The Court also found that the Defendant had notice and had not acted in good faith.

Although mere negligence is not, by itself, sufficient to establish bad faith, the Court held that the surrounding circumstances could provide evidence of it. Deliberately shutting one’s eyes to information which an honest person would investigate may prevent a purchaser from relying upon the protection provided by the Factors Act.

Concerns over title, missing documentation, changing invoice identities and requests concerning bank compliance were among the warning signs considered by the Court.

The decision

Mr Döser’s claim succeeded.

The Court concluded that he had established his ownership of the Porsche prior to the disputed transaction and remained its owner.

Importance for the classic car market

The decision provides a useful reminder that simply because a dealer, broker or other intermediary has possession of a classic car does not necessarily mean that they have unrestricted authority to sell it.

Purchasers of valuable cars should be particularly careful where there are unusual features surrounding a proposed transaction.

Missing title or registration documentation, uncertainty over the identity of the party requesting or receiving payment, unusual payment arrangements and other inconsistencies may all become highly significant if ownership is subsequently disputed.

The case also demonstrates the limits of the protection available to purchasers under the Factors Act 1889. A purchaser cannot necessarily rely upon the Act where warning signs surrounding the transaction have not been properly investigated.

Wilmots Litigation acted for Oliver Döser and instructed Peter Webster of Essex Court Chambers.

Read the judgment here: KB-2023-002527