Amy Winehouse’s father has lost a High Court claim against two of his daughter’s friends over the auctioning of items that had been owned by the singer.
Mitch Winehouse, acting as the administrator of his daughter’s estate, sued her stylist Naomi Parry and friend Catriona Gourlay over claims they profited from selling dozens of items at auctions in the United States in 2021 and 2023.
Lawyers for Mr Winehouse told a trial in December that the two women had “deliberately concealed” that they were selling the items, and the legal proceedings were his “only means of obtaining answers”.
Ms Parry and Ms Gourlay defended the claim, with their barristers stating that the items were either gifted by Ms Winehouse 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.”
Ms Winehouse, whose 2006 album Back to Black made her an international star, died from alcohol poisoning in 2011, aged 27.
During the trial, lawyers for Ms Parry accused Mr 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, Ms 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 $1.4m (£1.05m) for the Amy Winehouse estate, 30 per cent of which went to the foundation.
One item sold by Ms Parry included a silk mini-dress worn by Ms Winehouse during her final performance in Belgrade, Serbia, which was auctioned for $243,200 (£182,656).
She told the court that Mr Winehouse had offered her $250,000 (£187,000) 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”.
Judge Clarke 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 Mr 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.
Following the judgment, Ms Parry said: “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.”
