- New York consultant says he paid for a rare Patek Philippe 5070P-001 ‘blueface’ — but claims it was never delivered
- Claim seeks repayment of around £100,000 plus interest after a partial refund, court papers say
- Case follows earlier Kwok legal rows involving a Rolls-Royce Cullinan ‘loan’, a Bitcoin mine dispute, and a past Sotheby’s writ
- Olyvia Kwok denies it was a watch sale, arguing she borrowed the cash amid liquidity problems
A wealthy art financier is being sued for around £100,000 for allegedly failing to deliver a rare watch after receiving payment from a businessman.
Gallery owner Olyvia Kwok, based in London’s upmarket Mayfair, is accused of withholding a Patek Philippe 5070P-001 collector’s timepiece, despite agreeing to a transatlantic deal with a male acquaintance.
New York management consultant Patrick Coakley claims he purchased the platinum chronograph over the phone from Kwok in July 2023, before wiring the money to her UK company the same day.
However, he alleges the “esteemed art entrepreneur,” as she has been described in a society publication failed to ship the item to his US home.
Kwok denies the allegations, claiming the transaction was not a sale but a loan.
Coakley has now launched a legal bid in a British court to recover his money.
Expose News can reveal that this is not the first time Kwok has been embroiled in a court case over an alleged “loan” involving a wealthy US acquaintance.
Two years ago, the China-born investor claimed she lent a customised Rolls-Royce Cullinan SUV to another rich associate.
The 4×4 supercar was subsequently stolen, and millionaire banker Stephen Decani – who claimed he had paid in part for the car and pocketed the £290,000 insurance payout himself, according to a High Court writ.
Kwok sued Decani, who had apparently once been in a relationship with her and was also a business partner, for the money.
However, it was not the first time the pair had clashed in court.
Kwok had previously sued Decani, also in 2024, in Texas.
Following allegations of fraud by the Australian businessman, Kwok filed a suit against him over their joint investment in a Bitcoin mine, a computer network that produces cryptocurrency.
Kwok claimed she and her companies had invested over £2.2 million ($3 million) into the digital venture, alleging Decani failed to follow through with the plans.
In this latest legal dispute over the designer watch, the roles are reversed, with Kwok facing the comprehensive court writ.
Legal documents reveal details of the complicated negotiations over the Patek Philippe 5070P, sought after for its distinctive blue dial.
Coakley originally paid £123,228.30 for the Patek Philippe 5070P and a further £26,139.33 for a second watch made by luxury Swiss brand Audemars Piguet.
Coakley’s Particulars of Claim state: “The Defendant (Kwok) delivered the Audemars Piguet watch to the Claimant prior to June 2023. However, in breach of s.28(3) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the agreement, the Defendant failed to deliver the Patek Philippe 5070P watch to the Claimant (Coakley) within 30 days or at all.”
To support his claim, Coakley submitted around 100 text messages between the pair, including photographs of watches sent by Kwok, and copies of bank documents.
On July 12, 2023, Kwok sent a screenshot of a Patek Philippe watch and a link to luxury watch website Chrono24.com, with the message: “This is the blueface.”
The following day, she texted: “Can’t you send me 200.” (sic), referring to $200,000.
Within hours, the case documents reveal Coakley sent Kwok’s company, Willscape Partners Limited, $200,000 (£149,367.64) in accordance with the agreement.
Kwok is the director of four additional art-related companies: Bruton + Co USD Limited, Bruton + Co Limited, Willstone Management Limited, and Kwok Gallery Limited.
Just over six months later, Kwok refunded Coakley less than half the value of the Patek Philippe, amounting to £44,810.28, in two instalments.
Upon issuing the claim last September, documents filed at court reveal that lawyers acting for Coakley calculated a further £77,782.35 was owed, plus at least £15,613.98 in interest.
In her defence document, Kwok “denied that the transaction entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant amounted to a sale or purchase of any goods.”
Her lawyers argued she borrowed the money due to liquidity problems and that Coakley agreed to take two paintings instead of the watch.
The document continued: “The Defendant therefore orally offered the Claimant the chance to take ownership of a Raghav Babbar painting in return for the loan that had been made by the Claimant… The Claimant agreed to take a painting in lieu of the Patek Philippe watch… which would be worth in excess of $150,000, being an untitled painting oil on canvas (110cm x 70cm).”
In February 2024, as the disagreement escalated, Coakley sent Kwok a text message: “Life is too short to be caught up in Rich peoples psycho drama. If you don’t know who are your real friends please pay me back the money I lent you.” (sic)
Kwok’s long history as a litigant includes another case linked to expensive art.
She was the subject of a £3 million High Court writ a decade ago after buying two high end paintings at a Sotheby’s auction on behalf of a client who failed to pay.
The paintings were Basquiat’s Water-Worshipper, which sold for £2.49 million, and Twombly’s Idilli, which fetched £386,500.
Kwok admitted the purchase went wrong and said she would try to pay for the paintings before seeking to sell them to other collectors.
“In ten years of dealings in the business I have never found my trust has been breached in this way,” she said afterward, adding. “My due diligence could have been better. The client came through a friend of mine and at the time it was really rushed.”
Although Sotheby’s issued the writ, the two parties settled out of court.
A former friend told Expose News that Kwok often had money difficulties.
The ex-business associate added: “For someone who portrayed herself as being successful in the art world, a ‘high-flyer,’ I wondered why she was always short of cash.
“I had to ask myself: ‘Why is she always involved in these messy legal cases?
“It’s one thing after the other, and something is not quite right.
“In that world, the value of a painting is partly dependent on the reputation of the person who owns it or is trading it.
“So, it was confusing that art was her career.”
