The father of Amy Winehouse has lost a High Court case in London over the auctioning of items belonging to the singer.
Mitch Winehouse, acting as the administrator of his daughter’s estate, sued her stylist Naomi Parry and friend Catriona Gourlay for hundreds of thousands of pounds over claims they profited from selling dozens of items at auctions in the United States in 2021 and 2023.
Amy Winehouse died aged 27 from alcohol poisoning in July 2011.
Lawyers for Mitch Winehouse told a trial in December that the two women did not inform him they were selling the items, and the legal proceedings were his “only means of obtaining answers”.
READ MORE
Parry and Gourlay defended the claim, with their barristers stating that the items were either gifted by the singer or were already owned by them.
Deputy High Court judge Sarah Clarke KC said in a judgment on Monday: “I find that neither Ms Parry nor Ms Gourlay deliberately concealed any of their disputed items from the claimant and even if I am wrong about that, Mr Winehouse could have discovered what disputed items the defendants had with reasonable diligence.”
Deputy High Court judge Sarah Clarke KC said in a judgment on Monday: “I find that neither Ms Parry nor Ms Gourlay deliberately concealed any of their disputed items from the claimant and even if I am wrong about that, Mr Winehouse could have discovered what disputed items the defendants had with reasonable diligence.”
During the trial, lawyers for Parry accused Winehouse of bringing the claim out of “petty jealousy”, which he denied.
He said he thought the money from the 2021 auction would be split between himself, Winehouse’s mother, Janis, and the Amy Winehouse Foundation (AWF).
The court heard how the auction catalogue contained 834 items and that the sale raised $1.4 million (€1.2m) for the Amy Winehouse estate, 30 per cent of which went to the foundation.
One item sold by Parry included a silk mini-dress worn by Winehouse during her final performance in Belgrade, Serbia, which was auctioned for $243,200 (€206,000).
She told the court that Mitch Winehouse had offered her $250,000 for the proceeds of her sale and to make the legal claim go away, but that she would “rather set the money on fire than give him a penny”.
In her ruling, the judge said: “Mr Winehouse is clearly a strong character but also someone who has suffered a great tragedy in the loss of his daughter.
“Since Amy’s death, he has worked hard to keep her memory alive including through the charitable entity, the Amy Winehouse Foundation, which supports and informs young people through a variety of projects.
“It is also the case that Amy’s estate, including in particular the royalties from Back To Black, has made Mr Winehouse personally extremely wealthy.
“Mr Winehouse is therefore understandably sensitive about anyone who he perceives as exploiting Amy’s memory, particularly for financial gain, and he is keen to promote the AWF, but also, in my judgment, he is equally sensitive about ensuring that the family continue to benefit financially.”
She also said that Winehouse “likes to dominate people and situations”, that she found him to be an “unreliable witness” and that he brought the claim “without bothering to check until shortly before trial” that he had a valid claim for the items he was claiming for.
Clarke described how Amy would “routinely” give clothing to her close friends as she did not want to be seen wearing the same piece more than once in public and she had “more items than she could ever wear, use or store”.
She also mentioned the singer’s “extraordinary generosity” and that it was consistent with her character to give items away and not change her mind about it.
In a statement provided by her lawyers, Naomi Parry said after the ruling: “Today, the High Court has cleared my name, unequivocally and in full, after years of deeply damaging and unfounded allegations brought by Mitch Winehouse.
“This was not a partial outcome or a matter of nuance. The claim has failed entirely. It should never have been brought.
“I stood beside Amy as a friend, a creative partner, and her costume designer. What we shared was built on trust, loyalty, and a genuine love of the work.
“To see that relationship misrepresented so publicly has been both painful and profoundly unjust.
“This judgment restores the truth. It does not, however, erase the toll, on my health, my work, and my life, of defending myself against claims that had no evidential foundation.
“Accountability matters, and I will take the steps necessary to address the damage caused. For now, my focus is on rebuilding my life and career, and protecting my name, the work I created with Amy, and her legacy.” – PA
