The father of Amy Winehouse was ordered to pay nearly a million pounds to two of his daughter’s friends who he accused of auctioning items owned by the singer without his permission.
Mitch Winehouse, 75, must also cover his own legal costs after the failed High Court claim, which amounted to at least £950,000.
The former London taxi driver sued the star’s former stylist Naomi Parry and friend Catriona Gourlay over claims they made money from selling dresses, used lipstick and eyeliner.
Ms Winehouse, famed for numerous songs including Valerie and Tears Dry On Their Own, died of alcohol poisoning aged 27 in 2011.
However, it was not until a decade later that the two women sold the items at auctions in the United States in 2021 and 2023.
Mr Winehouse claimed the pair owed him £730,000 from the profits and ‘deliberately concealed’ their sale.
Ms Parry and Ms Gourlay defended the claim in High Court, with Judge Sarah Clarke KC siding with the women earlier this year.
Judge Clarke found Mr Winehouse ‘knew all along’ about the sale of his daughter’s items and only afterwards began pursuing the two women in an ‘aggressive and unpleasant way’.
Amy Winehouse’s father Mitch lost his High Court claim against two of her former friends who he accused of auctioning items owned by the singer – and has been ordered to pay nearly a million pounds
Amy Winehouse is pictured with her former flatmate Naomi Parry, one of the women Mr Winehouse claimed owed him £730,000 and ‘deliberately concealed’ the sale of the clothes
She previously told the court Ms Winehouse ‘routinely’ gave clothing to friends, mentioning the London-born star’s ‘extraordinary generosity’.
Mr Winehouse inherited the Back to Black singer’s multi-million pound estate when she passed away.
He claimed he thought the money from the 2021 auction would be split between himself, Ms Winehouse’s mother, Janis, and the Amy Winehouse Foundation.
The court previously heard how the auction catalogue contained 834 items and that the sale raised £1.04million for the Amy Winehouse estate, 30 per cent of which went to the foundation.
One item sold by Ms Parry was a silk minidress worn by Ms Winehouse during her final performance in Belgrade, Serbia, which was auctioned for £180,000.
Winehouse was found dead at her home in Camden, north London, just five days after she wore the item of clothing.
Ms Parry told the court that Mr Winehouse had offered her £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’.
In a judgment on Wednesday, Judge Clarke 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.’
Winehouse died of alcohol poisoning aged 27 in 2011, but it was not until a decade later that the two women sold the items at auctions in the United States
The silk dress worn by the singer at her final performance in Belgrade, Serbia, was one of the items sold at auction
The judge said that, as of April, Ms Parry’s costs were estimated to be £715,361 while Ms Gourlay’s were £487,132.
She ordered Mr Winehouse to pay interim payments to each of the women – £569,330 to Ms Parry and £394,521 to Ms Gourlay – within the next two weeks.
He also must pay the women’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, which means those recovering their costs generally get a higher percentage of what they spent than is usual. It is often awarded when one side has behaved particularly unreasonably.
Judge Clarke said that in pursuing his claim, Mr Winehouse 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’.
He also wanted to expand his claim ‘very late in the day’, which led to the six-day trial in December and January overrunning by three days, while he ‘actively courted publicity for his serious allegations, including in the press and in court when he knew the press were present’.
Judge Clarke 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.’
She continued: ‘I find that the defendants were fully entitled to defend their personal and professional reputations to the end, and that they had no other realistic option given the claimant’s serious and damaging allegations, his aggressive conduct throughout, his refusal to accept their explanations, his unrealistic settlement offers and the real risk that he would thereafter be free to continue making public allegations of deceit and dishonesty against them.’
