Amy Winehouse's dad ordered to pay £1m to singer's friends after losing court bid
A judge said in a ruling on Wednesday (29.07.26) that Amy Winehouse's dad Mitch “knew all along” about the intended sale.
Amy Winehouse’s dad Mitch has been ordered to pay almost £1 million to two of his late daughter’s friends, who he had claimed had been profiting by selling her personal property at auction.
Mitch, who has been administrator of his daughter’s estate since her death from alcohol poisoning aged 27 on 23 July, 2011, made the accusation against Naomi Parry and Catriona Gourlay at London’s High Court.
According to the court document, he alleged the two women sent “various items of personal property owned by Amy during her lifetime” to two auctions in 2021 and this year and claimed that by putting the items up for sale “in their own names and on their own behalf” the women “converted” the late performer’s property “to their own use”.
Amy’s estate sought £534,192.90 in damages from Naomi, and £198,041.07 from Catriona, but a judge said in a ruling on Wednesday (29.07.26) that Mitch “knew all along” about the intended sale.
Judge Sarah Clarke KC said: “The claimant chose to bring an inherently weak claim, pursue it aggressively and relentlessly to the end, and make serious and unfounded allegations against the defendants which significantly damaged their reputations, career prospects, financial security and health."
Naomi’s costs are estimated to be £715,361 while Catriona’s are £487,132, with Mitch given two weeks by the judge to make the interim payments.
Mitch has also been ordered to pay the pair’s legal costs on an indemnity basis - a situation usually reserved for when one side has behaved particularly badly.
Judge Clarke said that in taking the two women to court, Mitch had "deliberately turned this case into large-scale and expensive litigation, in circumstances calculated to exert commercial pressure on the defendants to settle on his terms".
She said: “This deliberate course of action was undertaken by the claimant with the aim of damaging the defendants' reputations and professional prospects in order to force them to settle the litigation on his terms and pay him the proceeds of sale of their items.
“He did so, knowing that they were vulnerable both financially and in status, and that his public allegations and insinuations of impropriety would only increase their vulnerability
“The fact that he knowingly and deliberately did this to two young women who had stood faithfully by Amy, and also by him and his family, and who had demonstrated their honesty and integrity over many years, makes his unreasonable conduct particularly serious.”
