Mitchell Winehouse v Naomi Parry & Anor

A claimant alleging conversion of chattels must establish possession or an immediate right to possession. Ownership alone is neither necessary nor sufficient.

A common-law gift of a chattel requires an intention to gift and delivery, but words of gift, writing and contemporaneous physical delivery are not indispensable. Intention is assessed objectively from all the evidence, including conduct, context, relationship and established practices. Where the donor is deceased, the evidence requires careful scrutiny, but corroboration is not mandatory.

Conversion is strict liability. Deliberate retention and use may amount to conversion where they exclude the person entitled to possession. The claim was nevertheless dismissed because the defendants owned or validly received the disputed items, or the sole converted item was time-barred.

The claimant, as personal representative of Amy Winehouse’s estate, sued two former close friends for conversion in relation to items sold at auctions in 2021 and 2023. The defendants contended that the items were theirs, had been gifted to them, had been abandoned, or were items in respect of which the estate lacked an immediate right to possession.

The claimant also alleged deliberate concealment to postpone limitation and alleged that the first defendant owed fiduciary duties in connection with the 2021 auction. The trial therefore concerned title or immediate possession, gifts, abandonment, conversion, limitation, deliberate concealment, pleading of a trust claim and fiduciary responsibility.

1. Disposition. The claim was dismissed against both defendants. The claimant failed to establish an immediate right to possession of almost all the disputed items.
2. Gifts. A valid gift of a chattel requires intention to gift and delivery. Delivery may precede or follow the intention and may be constructive or arise where the donee already has possession with the donor’s consent. Words of gift are evidence of intention and delivery, but are not a separate legal requirement. The intention is objectively assessed from all the circumstances and must be proved unequivocally.
3. Deceased donor. Evidence of an alleged gift by a deceased donor should be examined with suspicion and care. There is no absolute corroboration rule. The defendants’ close friendships with Amy, their established pattern of lending and gifting, their conduct after the gifts, photographs, exhibition records and other surrounding evidence established valid gifts for the Category B items.
4. Abandonment. Abandonment requires intention to abandon and a physical act of relinquishment. The first defendant established abandonment of certain used make-up and ballet-pump items.
5. Conversion. The sale of goods is capable of being conversion, and liability is strict. The first defendant’s removal of the D&G split dress was authorised and was not conversion. Her subsequent deliberate retention, use, storage and treatment of it as her own excluded the estate from possession and constituted conversion. That conversion occurred before 30 October 2017.
6. Limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied. Section 32 also applied in principle to the section 3 limitation period, but deliberate concealment was not established. The claimant could in any event have discovered the relevant facts with reasonable diligence. The claim concerning the D&G dress was therefore time-barred.
7. Trust and fiduciary duty. The claim concerning the birthday card was inadequately pleaded and was not considered further. Applying Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33, the first defendant had not consciously undertaken to act exclusively for the claimant or assumed a fiduciary role. Her unpaid assistance with the auction and exhibitions did not create fiduciary duties.