Television presenters Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly have been granted a High Court order forcing the London art dealer Andrew Lilley to hand over transaction records related to a series of Banksy purchases, after the stars claim an intermediary siphoned off substantial sums during deals conducted on their behalf.
The case centres on an unnamed art consultant, referred to throughout proceedings only as “X”, who handled the duo’s acquisition of six Banksy prints depicting Kate Moss rendered in the manner of Andy Warhol. Ant and Dec paid £550,000 for the works. The seller, Lilley, allegedly received just £300,000. Nobody has yet explained, at least not to the court’s satisfaction, what happened to the remaining £250,000.
Further discrepancies have emerged across a string of other transactions. The pair say they were told one of their Banksy Napalm Girl prints sold for £11,000, when it had in fact fetched £13,000. In total, information relating to 22 separate sales is now being sought.
On 4 March 2026, Judge Iain Pester ruled that the presenters have a “good arguable case” that a recognised legal wrong took place, and granted a Norwich Pharmacal Order requiring Lilley and his firm, Lilley Fine Art, to disclose their records. Lilley is not accused of wrongdoing. He had voluntarily declined to share the documents on grounds of confidentiality, and a court order was needed to compel disclosure. He told the BBC the matter is “between A&D and the third party.”
The consultant in question had worked on an agreed 10% commission. That arrangement ended in September 2021, following the court’s hearing and a breakdown in trust. Judge Pester carefully noted that no finding of liability has yet been made against the individual.
Norwich Pharmacal Orders have become a reasonably familiar instrument in art world disputes. In a 2020 case involving a Paul Signac painting, dealer Simon Dickinson was required, under the same mechanism, to disclose the identity of a buyer and the details of the transaction. Amanda Grey, a partner at Mishcon de Reya, described NPOs as “a standard tool for obtaining disclosure that we frequently deploy or consider in relevant circumstances,” adding that the attention this particular case has attracted is likely down to who is involved rather than any novel point of law.
The case, filed by McPartlin and Donnelly in August 2025, is ongoing. Representatives for all parties had not responded to requests for comment at the time of writing.
Top Photo: Ben Salter, Wikimedia Commons