Amy Winehouse’s dad loses High Court battle against singer’s friends over auction

Amy Winehouse’s father has lost a High Court claim against two of the late singer’s friends over the sale of items that had been owned by the singer.

Mitch Winehouse, acting as the administrator of his daughter’s estate, sued his daughter’s stylist Naomi Parry and friend Catriona Gourlay, claiming they had profited from selling dozens of items at auctions in the US in 2021 and 2023.

Mr Winehouse’s lawyers told the trial that the women had “deliberately concealed” that they were selling the items, and claimed the legal proceedings were his “only means of obtaining answers”.

Both Ms Parry and Ms Gourlay denied the claim, with their barristers affirming that the items were either gifted by the singer, who died in 2011, or were already owned by them.

Deputy High Court judge Sarah Clarke KC said in a judgment this morning (April 20): “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.”

The trial saw Ms Parry’s lawyers claim that Mr Winehouse had brought the claim out of “petty jealousy”, a claim which he denied.

He instead said he thought the money from the 2021 auction would be split between himself, the late singer’s mother, Janis, and the Amy Winehouse Foundation (AWF).

Among the items sold by Ms Parry was a silk mini-dress worn by Winehouse during her final performance in Belgrade, Serbia, which was auctioned for 243,200 dollars (£182,656).

She told the court that Mr Winehouse had offered her 250,000 dollars (£187,000) for the proceeds of her sale and to end the legal claim , but said 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 Mr Winehouse “likes to dominate people and situations”, and that she found him to be an “unreliable witness” who brought the claim “without bothering to check until shortly before trial” that he had a valid claim for the items sold by the two women.

Speaking after the judgement, 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. “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.””