A former rock band manager, her SAS major ex-husband and her estranged multimillionaire mum who “hates” her are locked in a £14 million three-way divorce court fight.
Australian former INXS manager turned wealthy businesswoman Maria-Christina Copinger-Symes (pictured) married British SAS major James Copinger-Symes, 57, in 1998 and set up home with their four children in a house in Chelsea, estimated to be worth over £3 million.
Ms Copinger-Symes, 54, is part of the wealthy Perez de la Sala dynasty, which made its £550 million-plus fortune in shipping, but for years has been badly estranged from them and was even banned from her dad’s funeral in 2022.
Her mother Felicite Perez De La Sala and three siblings’ feelings towards her have been described by a judge as being of “hate” due to her taking sides against them in an earlier court battle in Singapore over family wealth.
The couple split in 2022, with the wife agreeing a court order under which she would pay her ex £1.2 million, leaving her with £5.25 million.
But the family is now locked in a three-way fight after the wife learned that her parents had secretly gifted their son-in-law around £27.6 million of family money after they split.
She says she should receive around £14 million of that cash and in August 2024 won a Family Court ruling overturning the financial order in the divorce on the basis that the pre-planned cash gift amounted to “material non-disclosure” by her ex.
But her mother and ex are both now fighting that decision in the Court of Appeal, arguing that the gift was “non-matrimonial” and would never have been made at all if the wife was able to share it.
The court heard that Maria-Christina Copinger-Symes is the daughter of a branch of the Australian De La Sala shipping family, with her parents owning a £300 million share of the family fortune.
She married Major Copinger-Symes in Sydney in 1998, before the couple set up home in London, with Maria acting for a time as European manager of Aussie rock superstars INXS, led by tragic singer Michael Hutchence.
She now has lucrative business interests, including owning high-end scent and candle company Lilou et Loic.
In a ruling at the Central Family Court in 2024, Judge Edward Hess set out the background to Ms Copinger-Symes’ feud with her parents, saying: “The fact that the almost total estrangement existed from 2017 onwards is not in dispute.
“[Her parents] Bobby and Felicite decided by late 2017 to withdraw all financial and emotional support for the wife. They both swore statutory declarations explaining why the wife did not feature in their respective wills.”
He said the family split was based on a row over ownership of a London property and what her mum in a letter called “your ultimate betrayal of the whole family” during a fight in Singapore over the family fortune.
“The financial remedies proceedings between the wife and the husband were conducted against the background of the wife’s very wealthy family having very negative feelings about her and very positive feelings about the husband…This is very much an exception to the normal rule that ‘blood is thicker than water’,” the judge commented.
The judge said the De La Sala family’s relationship with the husband was completely different and that he had “subsumed her position as a member of the family.”
“The family not only liked and got on well with him, but they also regarded him as having been absolutely loyal to them in the [Singapore] dispute…and they took his side against the wife on the divorce issues,” he said.
That relationship led to Mr Copinger-Symes being handed the £27.6m gift after their divorce.
The judge in 2024 went on to order that the divorce settlement should be overturned and reconsidered, after finding that Major Copinger-Symes must have known he was in line to get the gift before he signed the March 2022 divorce settlement with his ex-wife, and so was guilty of “non-disclosure”.
At the Court of Appeal last month however, the husband’s barrister Richard Todd KC argued that the family judge got it wrong and should not have opened the gate for the wife to tap into the money gifted to him by her mother.
“The judge described the attitude of the wife’s mother, father and three siblings towards the wife as being one of ‘hate’,” he said.
“It was manifest that they did not wish her to benefit from the fortune which had been retained.
“The wife had accepted her needs were met – indeed she did not ever run a needs case in the original financial remedy proceedings.
“It was accepted that the gift was non-matrimonial. There was no basis on which the gift should be invaded.”
He also claimed the intended gift was not a secret from her at the time of the settlement.
“The wife expected the husband to be paid millions by her family. It was reasonable to infer that her expectation was that the husband would be paid in the tens of millions.
“The wife knew that there would be subventions from her parents. Further that her parents were worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
“The wife knew that there would be very substantial support from her parents to their son-in-law.
“The gift would not have happened if there was any danger of the wife being able to claim.
“We respectfully say that the court went into error in finding there was relevant non-disclosure…The gifts were non-matrimonial and she had no sharing claim in respect of it.”
Dakis Hagen KC, for the mother, also asked for the ruling below to be overturned, telling the court that the parent-daughter relationship had completely broken down and that the payment to their son-in-law was made “on the clear understanding that the wife should have no claim to them.”
“The payments were gifts which the mother and her late husband freely chose to make,” he said.
“Neither the husband nor the wife had any entitlement to receive a cent from them.”
He said that if the wife was deemed by the court to be able to share the gift, the mother should consequently be able to claim the money back as being gifted by “mistake”.
But Justin Warshaw KC, for the wife, argued that the ruling below in her favour should stand and that she should be able to fight now for the £14m.
“After all, the money comes from her family and without the marriage the husband would not have had the opportunity to receive the funds,” he said.
“The judge determined that the husband was guilty of fraudulent non-disclosure in the context of the earlier financial remedy proceedings with the wife, and that there was no proper basis for the husband to return the gifts.
“The gifts made to the husband were intended to be outright gifts.
“This finding is not only determinative of the wife’s mother’s case on the terms of the gift. It is also problematic for the wife’s mother’s case on mistake.”
After a two-day hearing, the Court of Appeal judges, Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Nugee, reserved their judgment on the case to be given at a later date.
