Court hears barrister 'lied', gave false evidence: former art dealer friend

Summing up for the fourth defendant, art dealer Vivienne Sharpe, who Ms McBride is suing for advising her to buy the Tucker, Peter Gray, SC, said Ms McBride's testimony "is so riddled with lies and untruths that she is not to be believed".

"Ms McBride has been shown to have given demonstrably false evidence,'' he said. ''She has done so deliberately. When one untruth was been uncovered she resorted to another.''

Mr Gray particularly drew attention to her evidence about transferring another artwork, a Bronwyn Oliver sculpture that was subject to a separate claim against Ms Sharpe, into her superannuation fund. Mr Gray accused her of giving differing accounts and blaming her accountants for what he said were illegal related party transactions under superannuation laws.

On the last day of the case, Ms McBride dropped her claim for damages in relation to the sale of the Oliver, which she alleged Ms Sharpe had sold too cheaply. The plaintiffs said they were dropping the claim because she was unable to prove loss.

Ms McBride rejected allegations she had lied.

But Mr Gray said the evidence should not be ignored. "Ms McBride is a barrister, an officer of the court. The consequences for her of findings to the effect of this submission are obvious," he said.

Ms McBride has argued that she was misled by her art adviser, Ms Sharpe, Christie's and the dealer who consigned the painting to the auction in 2000.

Counsel for Alex Holland, who sold the fake Tucker via Christie's to Ms McBride in 2000, said "there was not a scintilla" of evidence that his client had been involved in palming off the fake Tucker. Nor had his client misled or deceived Ms McBride and Christie's because he, like all the experts before the auction, had believed it to be a real Tucker, Mark Friedgut said. The court has heard that Christie's became suspicious about the Tucker soon after the auction.

The judge, Patricia Bergin, has reserved her decision.