Amy Winehouse and her father Mitch Winehouse in 2010. Mitch Winehouse has been ordered to pay two of his daughters’ friends £950,000 after he sued them for auctioning possessions she gave or lent them. Photograph: Fred Duval/FilmMagic View image in fullscreen Amy Winehouse and her father Mitch Winehouse in 2010. Mitch Winehouse has been ordered to pay two of his daughters’ friends £950,000 after he sued them for auctioning possessions she gave or lent them. Photograph: Fred Duval/FilmMagic Amy Winehouse Judge orders Amy Winehouse’s father to pay nearly £1m to her friends Mitch Winehouse ‘knowingly and deliberately’ made unfounded allegations against Naomi Parry and Catriona Gourlay, judge says
Prefer the Guardian on Google The father of British music sensation Amy Winehouse has been ordered to pay £950,000 (US$1.26m, A$1.82m) to his late daughter’s friends, who he unsuccessfully sued for auctioning the singer’s clothes and other items.
Mitch Winehouse earlier this year lost a case in the high court in London against two of Winehouse’s friends who auctioned dozens of her clothes and other possessions years after her death.
The late singer-songwriter, who was famed for her distinctive husky voice and enjoyed global meteoric success at a young age, died in July 2011 from alcohol poisoning, aged just 27.
The late singer’s former stylist Naomi Parry and her friend Catriona Gourlay denied acting dishonestly in auctioning the items they said were given or lent to them.
Her father argued they had no right to sell the items.
The 155 items, which were auctioned between 2021 and 2023, included clothes, ballet slippers, handbags, earrings and makeup owned by the late singer, as well as a dress she wore on her final tour in 2011.
During the trial, the London court was told Winehouse’s friends “took advantage” of her father’s forgetfulness and pocketed more than $1.4m in sales.
The judge found the two women had not deliberately concealed any of the items from Winehouse’s father, who “knew all along” about the intended sale and only pursued them for money after it was completed.
Read more “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,” judge Sarah Clarke said Wednesday.
“The fact that he knowingly and deliberately did this to two young women who had stood faithfully by Amy … makes his unreasonable conduct particularly serious.”
In the April ruling, the judge noted that Amy Winehouse was known for her “extraordinary generosity towards her friends and also those she barely knew”.