The Court of Appeal has ruled on the case of the former manager of the rock band INXS and her £14 million legal battle with her ex-husband and multimillionaire mother, in a case described as “extraordinary” by family professionals.
The former European manager of 80’s band INXS, Maria-Christina Copinger-Symes, an estranged member of a hugely wealthy Perez de la Sala shipping dynasty, claimed she was entitled to a share of the £27.6 million her mother secretly gifted to her ex-husband as part of divorce proceedings in 2022. Her mother and former husband argued the gift was non-matrimonial and would never have been made at all if Copinger-Symes were able to share it.
A family court ruling in 2024 overturned the financial order in the divorce on the basis that the pre-planned cash gift amounted to material non-disclosure by her ex.
Following proceedings in January, a judgment has been passed down from the Royal Courts of Justice in London, with Lady Justice Andrews dismissing the appeals of the mother and the former husband, allowing Copinger-Symes’ claim to proceed. The judges ruled that non-disclosure of the gift had a material effect on how the former couple’s assets were originally divided when they divorced.
David Lillywhite, partner at Burgess Mee said the decision sends a “clear message” to the profession. “Financial transparency is not optional in divorce proceedings,” he commented.
“When substantial wealth is involved, any gaps in disclosure can undermine the entire financial settlement.
“Couples should honestly report anticipated assets even if they have not yet received them, while family lawyers need to look out for unusual family dynamics and not assume that blood is always thicker than water.
“The judgment provides clarity for families navigating high value disputes and will likely influence how future cases involving family gifted assets are approached.”
While the facts of the case are “extraordinary”, there are important lessons for practice, said James Riby, partner at Charles Russell Speechlys. He added:
“The depth of the wife’s rift from her family is extreme, the way in which the battle lines are drawn – with son-in-law and mother-in-law allied – is all but unheard of, and the scale of the wife’s family wealth is exceptional. With this unlikely collection of features lending such a unique fact pattern, one would be forgiven for assuming today’s Court of Appeal judgment will have little relevance in other more quotidian divorce scenarios.
“However, the legal principles at the heart of this case have important implications for the duty of disclosure and fairness. Disclosure obligations remain firmly engaged until the conclusion of proceedings and this decision provides the strongest reminder that an order remains vulnerable to challenge where that principle is infringed. Whether the wife succeeds in her subsequent claim to share in the gift her parents made to her former husband is another matter, raising its own unique set of questions.”
