Amy Winehouse’s father has denied ‘jealousy and greed’ motivated his £730,000 legal claim that could bankrupt two of his daughter’s friends, a court heard.
Mitch Winehouse is claiming the huge sum from two former flatmates of his pop star daughter after they reaped a fortune selling her dresses and nicknacks – including used lipstick and eyeliner – at auction.
Back To Black singer Ms Winehouse died of alcohol poisoning aged 27 in 2011, but it was not until a decade later her friends Naomi Parry and Catriona Gourlay, both 41, decided to profit from an auction of her belongings.
Both had been so close to the troubled singer, whose life descended into chaos fuelled by heroin and crack cocaine, that their names were engraved by the family on her gravestone. Ms Parry had acted as her stylist.
According to former London taxi–driver Mr Winehouse, 75, who inherited his daughter’s multi–million pound estate when she died intestate, the pair ‘deliberately concealed’ the fact that they were selling 150 items linked to his daughter.
Mr Winehouse, who denies exploiting his daughter himself, claims he had assumed 30 per cent of all profits would go to his late daughter’s charity – and the other 70 per cent to him and his ex–wife, Amy’s mother Janis.
And he says he only found out 150 items had been sold for the personal benefit of Misses Parry and Gourlay after the auction took place.
They included many desirable items – with a single silk bamboo–print mini–dress worn by Ms Winehouse at her last ever performance, in Belgrade, Serbia, fetching £182,000.
At London’s High Court, Mr Winehouse is demanding the pair hand over the bulk of the money they made at auction. Ms Parry is said to have made a total of £682,000, and Ms Gourlay £259,000.
They insist the sold pieces were either gifts from Ms Winehouse to them, or items they had lent her in the first place and which always remained their possessions.
And the court heard that after the singer’s father had began fighting to get hold of the money, Ms Parry accused him of being greedy despite ‘already having four houses’.
Mr Winehouse’s barrister, Henry Legge KC, said: ‘Ms Parry and Ms Gourlay have suggested this dispute is motivated by jealousy and greed.’
Instead, the lawyer and Mr Winehouse insisted, he aimed to understand what claims the pair had to ownership of the items they sold.
He reluctantly decided only a court case could provide answers, he added.
But yesterday Ms Gourlay’s barrister Ted Loveday claimed jealousy and determination ‘to squeeze as much money as possible out of the auction’ were his motivations.
Referring to the auction, Mr Loveday said: ‘When you realised it was Ms Parry’s items fetching huge sums, you became jealous of her, didn’t you?’
The barrister added a claim that Mr Winehouse implied his daughter’s friends were thieves who had stolen her belongings from a lock–up storage facility in a bid to blacken their names.
Mr Winehouse said he had no basis to accuse them of theft ‘apart from the fact we were £800,000 short’, and stressed his case was about ‘answers’.
His barrister points out that one of the items sold by Ms Gourlay was a birthday card to Ms Winehouse from pop star Adele and top music producer Mark Ronson which she was supposed to hand over, but never did.
The case, which threatens to bankrupt Ms Winehouse’s former friends, continues.
