A case involving allegations of art fraud has strayed into the world of art financing and how the wealthy buy and sell art through their personal superannuation funds.
Louise McBride, a barrister, is suing auction house Christie's, classic car and art dealer Alex Holland and her former art consultant Vivienne Sharpe over an Albert Tucker painting bought in May 2000 that she says has been revealed as a fake.
But on Tuesday she faced stiff questioning about the financing of the painting and whether she had lied in a loan application to fund it.
In an application for a hire purchase agreement to fund the Tucker, Ms McBride stated the value of her art portfolio was $1.5 million but, under cross examination, she conceded this was exaggerated.
This prompted a warning from Justice Patricia Bergin that Ms McBride could object to questions that could incriminate her and called a short adjournment. Ms McBride replied that her secretary had filled out the form on her behalf and she had merely signed it.
Christie's is fighting the claim on the basis that Ms McBride was not the owner of the artwork and therefore not the plaintiff, but rather it was either her husband's company Laurentine, which made some of the payments on the loan, or the superannuation fund. No one had yet contended the artwork was in fact genuine.
Ms McBride was also questioned about a transaction in 2009 involving another artwork raised in the case, a Bronwyn Oliver sculpture, titled Tracery, estimated to be worth between $350,000 and $450,000, which she sold into her personal superannuation fund.
The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act prevents related party transactions. As the beneficiary of the superannuation fund, Ms McBride was restricted from transferring assets she owned to the super fund.
Ms McBride admitted that, at that time, she and her former husband Greg Daniel, an advertising executive, were facing financial pressures. In email correspondence tendered in court, Westpac told Ms McBride her application for credit "would not be looked at favourably" as her overdraft and credit cards were close to their limits.
Ms McBride wrote back that, in the worst-case scenario, she could sell down shares in her superannuation fund and use the cash to buy some of her art.
Asked if this was her idea to avoid the provisions of the act, Ms McBride insisted the idea had come from art consultant Martin Brown, or possibly her accountant, or possibly Ms Sharpe as a way of "stepping through the provisions of the SIS Act".
"You are making this up Ms McBride," counsel for Ms Sharpe Peter Gray, SC, said. "No, I am not," she said.
In her most recent affidavit, filed last week, Ms McBride said the sculpture was bought by her husband then transferred to her super fund.
Counsel for Mr Holland drew Ms McBride's attention to clauses in the auction house's catalogues that said descriptions of items were "statements of opinion, not statements of fact" and any warranty of authenticity was specifically excluded.
"I put it to you, Ms McBride, that you and your husband regularly received catalogues and your eyes would have fallen on these clauses," he said.
"If you are asking whether I read them, no," Ms McBride replied.
The case continues.
