A high-profile £14 million divorce dispute involving the former manager of Australian rock band INXS has shone a spotlight on the growing complexity of modern family law cases, particularly where generational wealth, gifts and opaque asset structures are involved.
Maria Christina Copinger-Symes, who previously managed the band during its global success, is now locked in a legal battle with her former husband, James Copinger-Symes, a former SAS major, after a financial settlement agreed following their separation in 2022 was challenged over alleged “material non-disclosure”.
Under the original financial remedy order, Ms Copinger-Symes agreed to pay her ex-husband a lump sum of £1.2 million, leaving her with approximately £5 million from the couple’s joint marital assets. However, the settlement has since unravelled after it emerged that Mr Copinger-Symes received a £27.6 million gift from Ms Copinger-Symes’ parents after the couple separated.
Ms Copinger-Symes argues that the gift was not disclosed during the original proceedings and that, had it been known, it would have fundamentally altered the outcome of the settlement. She is now seeking a £14 million share of the sum, claiming it constitutes material non-disclosure sufficient to overturn the original order.
Her former husband disputes this, arguing that the gift was neither secret nor matrimonial in nature and should therefore be excluded from any financial remedy. He maintains that the funds were gifted to him on the clear understanding that Ms Copinger-Symes would have no entitlement to them.
The case also highlights how financial disputes in divorce can become deeply entangled with wider family relationships. Reports suggest the dispute has intensified existing tensions within Ms Copinger-Symes’ family, allegedly stemming from disagreements over property and inheritance, underscoring the emotional and relational damage that can arise when wealth, divorce and family dynamics collide.
At its core, the case raises two long-standing and highly contentious issues in family law: the obligation of full and frank financial disclosure, and the boundary between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, particularly where significant gifts are made after separation but before final settlement.
The Court of Appeal heard the case over two days, with judgment now reserved. The panel, comprising Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Nugee, is expected to deliver a ruling at a later date.
Family law practitioners will be watching the outcome closely. A decision in favour of reopening the settlement could have wide-ranging implications for how post-separation gifts are treated and reinforce the risks of incomplete disclosure in cases involving complex family wealth structures.