The High Court has handed down judgment dismissing the claims brought by the father of the late singer Amy Winehouse against two of her close friends.

Maitland’s Ted Loveday acted for the successful second defendant, Ms Catriona Gourlay. He was instructed by Frania Cooper and Martyn Bailey of Lee & Thompson LLP. Amanda Hadkiss was instructed at an earlier stage of proceedings, and prepared the Defence for both defendants.

The claim related to the auctioning of items that had been associated with the late Amy Winehouse, who died in July 2011. Mitchell Winehouse said that the sale amounted to an unlawful conversion of property belonging to Amy Winehouse’s estate, or alternatively that it was carried out in breach of fiduciary duty.

Following a five-day trial in December 2025 and January 2026, Sarah Clarke KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) has handed down a lengthy judgment dismissing Mr Winehouse’s claims in their entirety.

In her judgment, the Judge:

• Accepted that Catriona Gourlay had been the owner of each item that she had auctioned. She found Ms Gourlay’s evidence to be “credible”, “consistent” and “convincing”.
• Accepted the evidence of Naomi Parry (the first defendant) and witnesses on the defendants’ behalf including Sadie Frost and Kelly Osborne. Conversely, she found that Mr Winehouse’s “memory is poor” and that he was “an unreliable witness except where his evidence was corroborated”.
• Held that the claims were, in any event, time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980—because Ms Gourlay had typically acquired the items before 2011. The Court rejected Mr Winehouse’s case that the defendants had deliberately concealed their possession of the items from the Estate – so as to extend time under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980. She stated: “I do not find this plausible and nor is it consistent with the evidence… the evidence does not support the assertion that… the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy of this sort”.
• Rejected the claim that Ms Parry had assumed fiduciary duties towards Mr Winehouse in relation to the auction—holding that Ms Parry “never assumed any fiduciary relationship or duties… moreover the claimant would have known that”.

Catriona commented: "I am pleased and grateful that the Court has dismissed all the claims made against me and Naomi. Today marks the end of a long and stressful ordeal which has caused huge damage to me personally, professionally and financially. This outcome vindicates me and restores my reputation and I will now be able to begin to rebuild my life. I have only ever wanted to honour and protect Amy’s legacy and our friendship. I would like to thank my family, friends and legal team for their support".

Martyn and Frania commented: “We are very pleased that the Court's decision fully vindicates Catriona Gourlay following a long court case which was very difficult for her”.

The judgment will be interesting to legal practitioners for its treatment of the evidence (especially the Judge’s comments on the balance between witness memories and documents – with reference to Martin v Kogan [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 and Mohammed v Daji [2024] EWCA Civ 1247, another case in which Ted appeared) as well as its comments on the law of gifts, conversion, limitation and fiduciary duties. Members of Maitland may provide an update on these topics at a later date.

All inquiries should be directed to Martyn Bailey and Frania Cooper at Lee & Thompson LLP

Read the judgement in full: Mitchell Winehouse v Naomi Parry and Catriona Gourlay [2026] EWHC 911 (KB)