A £14m divorce dispute highlights the dangers of family wealth not being disclosed in litigation
A £14 billion divorce dispute involving the former manager of Australian rock band INXS has shed light on the growing complexity of modern family law cases, particularly where generational wealth, gifts and intangible assets are involved.
Maria Christina Copinger-Symes, who managed the band during their international success, is now at loggerheads with her ex-husband James Copinger-Symes, a former SAS chief, after a financial deal agreed following their 2022 split was challenged over alleged “non-disclosure of assets”.
Under an initial financial remedy order, Mrs Copinger-Symes agreed to pay her ex-husband a total of £1.2 million, leaving her with almost £5 million in the couple’s joint marital assets. However, the settlement has since emerged after it emerged that Mr Copinger-Symes received a £27.6 million gift from Ms Copinger-Symes’ parents after the couple split.
Ms Copinger-Symes says the gift was not disclosed during the trial and that, if it had been known, it would have changed the outcome of the settlement. It is now seeking a £14 million share of this sum, which it says includes the non-disclosure of assets sufficient to overturn the original order.
Her ex-husband disputes this, saying the gift was not confidential or marital and therefore should not be excluded from any financial remedy. He maintains that these funds were given to him with the clear understanding that Ms. Copinger-Symes would not have any rights to them.
The case also highlights how financial disputes in a divorce can deeply affect extended family relationships. Reports suggest the row has deepened the rift in Mrs Copinger-Symes’ family, allegedly over a dispute over property and inheritance, underscoring the emotional and relationship damage that can occur when wealth, divorce and family dynamics collide.
At its core, the case raises two long-standing and highly controversial issues in family law: the obligation of full and frank financial disclosure, and the boundary between marital and non-marital assets, especially when significant gifts are made after separation but before the final settlement.
The Court of Appeal heard the case for two days, the decision was not reserved. The panel, which includes Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Nugee, is expected to deliver a decision later.
Family law practitioners will be watching the outcome closely. A decision in favor of reopening the agreement could have wide-ranging implications for how post-divorce gifts are handled and increase the risk of incomplete disclosure in cases involving complex family wealth structures.
