Deputy High Court Judge Sarah Clarke KC has made an indemnity costs award against Mr Mitchell Winehouse, the father of the late singer Amy Winehouse, following the defeat of his claim against two of her closest friends.

The judgment is noteworthy for the strong terms in which the Court has criticised the conduct of the claimant. This language reflects genuine judicial concern about parties who behave in a way that goes beyond ordinary adversarial conduct. It represents a warning to wealthy and aggressive litigants who are tempted to pursue claims unreasonably.

Following the judgment, Mr Winehouse faces orders for payments to the defendants on account of costs which exceed £1 million, which he has been ordered to pay within 14 days.

Background

The trial took place in December 2025 and January 2026, with a substantive judgment having been given in May 2026: Mitchell Winehouse v Naomi Parry & Catriona Gourlay [2026] EWHC 911 (KB)

Mr Winehouse, on behalf of the Amy Winehouse estate, had accused Ms Parry and Ms Gourlay of unlawful conversion of various belongings associated with their close friend. In Ms Parry’s case, he also alleged breach of fiduciary duty. In its substantive judgment, the Court dismissed all of Mr Winehouse’s claims. The Court also held that the claims were time-barred and rejected Mr Winehouse’s argument that key facts had been “deliberately concealed” from him for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980.

Following the hand-down of judgment, the parties made submissions on costs. As the Court noted: “Regrettably, the parties do not agree on any aspect of the incidence, basis or interim payment of costs and their respective positions could not be further apart…”: costs judgment at [6].

“Unreasonable to a high degree”

The costs judgment was handed down on 29 July 2026: Mitchell Winehouse v Naomi Parry & Catriona Gourlay [2026] EWHC 1970 (KB)

Overall, the Judge endorsed the defendants’ submission that his substantive case had been weak, opportunistic or thin. She found that the claimant had “lost on every material point”. His defeat had been “total and comprehensive”. He and his witnesses had been “found to be unreliable and were disbelieved on oath”: [56].

The Judge found that indemnity costs were justified in circumstances where the claimant’s conduct had been “unreasonable to a high degree” and “outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of proceedings”: [63]. As detailed at [41] (which the Court accepted, at [54]) and [64]:

i) The claimant had “pursued the defendants aggressively and relentlessly in the hope that they would be worn down and intimidated into giving up and handing over the proceeds of the sale of their Items”, including the instruction of solicitors he described as “the finest and most aggressive attorneys in London”.

ii) The claimant “bombarded the defendants with aggressive and unpleasant communications, including… impugning the defendants' honesty by alleging that they had acted in a deceitful way” and accusing the defendants of theft when such claims were totally unfounded (see [42(iii)]).

iii) The claimant “had limitless funds” which led him to litigate in a disproportionate way. The Court found that his purpose “can only have been to bolster a weak case and exert commercial pressure on the defendants”.

iv) He pursued the claims despite knowing “that neither defendant had any money to fight the litigation nor pay the damages he claimed, nor his costs”, with the result that victory would only serve to bankrupt the defendants.

v) He instructed leading counsel for trial without agreeing to the variation of the first defendant’s costs budgets to allow instruction of her own leading counsel.

vi) Whilst “whilst ostensibly indicating willingness to mediate”, he “in fact made it difficult for a mediation to take place” due to his conduct.

vii) At trial, he subjected the defendants “to intensive cross-examination which contained allegations of deceit and dishonesty in pursuit of his deliberate concealment and breach of fiduciary duty allegations”, all of which failed. This had a significant adverse effect on both defendants.

In addition, the claim itself “was pleaded in vague and sloppy terms” and the claimant had not bothered to check the contents of his claim until shortly before trial, leading to certain items being abandoned: [40(ii)]; [64(ii) & (vi)].

The claimant had “deliberately courted publicity in a way that was calculated to exert pressure on the defendants to wear them down and cause significant damage to their reputations”. This included making unfounded allegations to journalists from The Sun and the Sunday Times Magazine in connection with the case: [43]-[46]; [54]. This caused very real damage to the defendants’ reputations and their careers: [47]; [54]. Even now, the Judge noted, the claimant “continues to regard himself as the wronged party and the 'victim', rather than the author of his own misfortune”: [72].

By contrast, the Court observed that the two defendants “had consistently proved themselves to be devoted friends of Amy’s, who stood by her and supported her over many years and were devastated by her death. In addition, both had given unswerving support to the claimant and his family in the wake of Amy's death and for 10 years thereafter, including many hours of unpaid work keeping Amy's memory and legacy alive, and for the [Amy Winehouse Foundation]. At no point during all that time, had the defendants ever done anything but behave with honesty, integrity and care for Amy, the claimant and his family”: [58].

No unreasonable refusal of mediation

Interestingly, the Judge also criticised the claimant for having taken an unreasonable stance on costs. She found that this reinforced her overall view of his conduct: [73].

The claimant had argued that, far from being subject to indemnity costs, he should be relieved of any liability to pay costs at all. He did so on the basis of an allegation that the defendants had unreasonably refused to engage in mediation. The Judge rejected that submission, for reasons detailed at [57]-[61]. In overview:

• The claimant had himself created a situation where mediation was difficult, due to the aggressive way in which he had pursued his claims.
• While he suggested he was willing to settle, his proposals “only ever amounted to requiring the defendants to concede his claim and make payments of money to him”. This did not reflect the “inherent weakness of his own case”, did not make any provision for the defendants’ costs, and did not provide for public retraction of the serious allegations he had aired against the defendants.
• Against that backdrop, it was inevitable that the defendants were wary of mediation. Despite this, both defendants did in fact indicate they were willing to mediate. In the first defendant’s case, a mediation was cancelled “when the claimant’s solicitor made serious and totally unfounded accusations of impropriety against her and her solicitor”: [60]. In the second defendant’s case, mediation did in fact take place, but it failed due to the claimant’s unrealistic expectations for settlement.

This aspect of the Judge’s reasoning should provide some encouragement to parties who feel that demands for mediation are being advanced tactically, for costs reasons, by claimants who have unreasonably brought hopeless claims.

Conclusion

The Judge ordered indemnity costs for both defendants.

Since costs were being assessed on the indemnity basis, interim payments were calculated by reference to 100% of budgeted costs, and 85% of unbudgeted costs: [80]. The Judge considered this to be a reasonable amount given, among other things, the complexity of the litigation and the large sums spend by the claimant.

The claimant was therefore ordered to pay £569,330.99 to the first defendant and £394,521.89 to the second defendant, in both cases within 14 days, with further costs to be the subject of detailed assessment.

The second defendant was represented by Ted Loveday and, at an earlier stage of the case, Amanda Hadkiss, both instructed by Frania Cooper and Martyn Bailey at Lee & Thompson LLP.

Read the full judgment: Mitchell Winehouse v Naomi Parry & Catriona Gourlay [2026] EWHC 1970 (KB)