Tort of Conversion – Winehouse (suing as the personal representative of Amy Jade Winehouse (deceased)) v Perry and Another [2026]

The King’s Bench Division dismissed a claim brought by Mr Winehouse, in his capacity as personal representative of Amy Winehouse’s estate, against the Defendants, who were longstanding friends of Amy Winehouse. The claim concerned 141 items sold by the Defendants at auctions in November 2021 and May 2023, which the Claimant alleged belonged to the estate. On that basis, he asserted that the Defendants were not entitled to sell the items and that their sale constituted the tort of conversion, rendering them liable in damages. The Claimant further alleged that the first defendant had breached fiduciary duties owed to him.

The tort of conversion is concerned with the protection of proprietary or possessory rights in tangible goods. It arises when a defendant deliberately acts in a manner inconsistent with the claimants’ rights to possession of goods to such an extent that the claimant is excluded from their use and possession.

The court rejected the claims in their entirety. It found that the Defendants had established ownership of the disputed items either through valid gifts made by Amy during her lifetime or through original ownership. The court accepted the Defendants’ evidence regarding Amy Winehouse’s exceptionally generous nature and her practice of spontaneously gifting personal items to close friends.

The court further found that the Claimant knew the defendants were participating in the 2021 auction and selling items they claimed as their own. Allegations of deliberate concealment were rejected. The court accepted the first Defendant’s evidence that she and Amy had agreed that the first Defendant would retain ownership of the “Final Tour” dresses that she had designed.

In light of the finding that the Defendants did not conceal their auction activities from the claimant, the court concluded that the first defendant never assumed any fiduciary relationship or duties towards him. In any event, the Claimant would have known that no such fiduciary relationship existed.

Amy died intestate on 23 July 2011 aged 27. Under the intestacy rules, her estate passed to her parents.

The Defendants were close friends of Amy’s, one being her stylist and both lived with her for a period of time.

The court found that the second Defendant’s evidence was credible and she had purchased 25 Category A items from Rokit (a vintage clothing shop) using staff discount and lent those to Amy. This was corroborated by photographs that showed the items being worn by the Defendant following Amy’s death.

The court accepted that a further 60 items were validly gifted by Amy to the second Defendant. The gifts were deemed to consistent with Amy’s generous character and the close informal relationship between friends who regularly gifted, lent and swapped items.

The court found that the first Defendant and Amy had an agreement that the first Defendant would retain ownership of the final tour dresses she designed.

The claim pursued by the Claimant of deliberate concealment was rejected. Evidence showed that the Claimant knew the Defendants were participating in the 2021 auction.

The Claimant and Mrs Winehouse’s evidence was found to be unreliable due to poor memory, failure to check disputed items until shortly before the, and inconsistencies in evidence.