The father of deceased singer Amy Winehouse has lost a high court case over the sale of items he claimed were part of the late singer’s estate, after they were sold at auction in 2021 for over $1 million.
Sketches, birthday cards, clothes, handbags, purses and jewellery were amongst the disputed items Mitch Winehouse, Amy Winehouse’s father, said had been sold without permission from the estate.
The claim against Naomi Parry and Catriona Gourlay, who were described as “longstanding and extremely close friends” of the singer (pictured in 2007) since before she achieve global fame, centred on the sale of the items and whether the defendants had the rights to ownership.
Mr Winehouse alleged the items did not belong to Parry or Gourlay, their sale amounted to a tort of conversion, and he had been unaware of their sale. Mr Winehouse’s claim also alleged their sale was deliberately concealed from the estate, which would move the date on any limitation on the claim from the point of sale to the point of discovery of the sale.
In their defence, Parry and Gourlay said the disputed items were owned by them or had been gifted to them by Amy Winehouse and denied deliberate concealment. Any “reasonable diligence” would have discovered the auctions, they added.
During proceedings, Mr Winehouse was described by Deputy High Court Judge Sarah Clarke KC as a “strong character” who was sensitive to any perception of exploitation of Amy Winehouse’s memory. It was her view, she added, that Mr Winehouse was “equally sensitive about ensuring that the family continue to benefit financially”, acknowledging the royalties from the estate had made him personally wealthy.
Mr Winehouse was an “unreliable witness”, Judge Clarke said: he had dropped his claim for some of the disputed items because it was “blindingly obvious” they were gifts from Amy, and admitted he had failed to apply any “critical thought” to many of the disputed items in this case.
“If that is right, then it is troubling that the claimant brought a claim without bothering to check the items he was claiming for until very shortly before trial. This in my view is relevant to my assessment of his credibility and reliability as a witness,” the judge said.
Evidence was presented suggesting Amy Winehouse was “spontaneous, generous and deeply loving to her friends,” often giving away expensive possessions freely. Judge Clarke accepted the evidence as “consistent with the nature of close friendship between young creative women, particularly when living together, that they would gift, lend and swop items between them”.
Mr Winehouse was unable to “define which of the disputed items the defendants had been gifted by Amy and which had not,” the judge added.
In arriving at her decision, Judge Clarke said she found Parry and Gourlay could either evidence ownership of the items, or they had been abandoned by Amy Winehouse therefore the “claimant had no ownership or an immediate right to possession of these items”.
