Why artists' works in storage can be seized when a gallery goes bust

When Stephen Friedman Gallery entered administration in February 2026, it became the latest in a series of London gallery insolvencies including Blain Southern (2019), Simon Lee Gallery (2023), and Arusha Gallery (2025). Artists whose works are held by third-party storage providers engaged by the now-defunct gallery face a particular challenge: if the gallery has not paid storage fees, providers may refuse to release works until arrears are cleared, even though the artworks remain the artist's property and the debt was incurred by the gallery. This is possible because storage providers' terms and conditions typically include a lien—a security interest giving the possessor a right to retain property until the debt is discharged. The gallery, as the artist's agent, may have agreed to such terms without the artist's knowledge. Whether a storage provider's refusal amounts to wrongful interference is a legal grey area, as providers argue they rely on the gallery's apparent authority to bind the artist. Artists can protect themselves by asking their gallery about third-party storage and any lien agreements, and by considering whether to store more work with a gallery than necessary. Jon Sharples, an intellectual property and art lawyer at Howard Kennedy, notes that storage providers should treat artists with sympathy, as artists are already at a low point professionally and financially.