An expert in divorce law has said ‘financial transparency is not optional in divorce proceedings’ after a former INXS manager won £14 million in the Court of Appeal against her SAS major ex-husband.
Maria-Christina Copinger-Symes made a claim to a £27.6 million gift made to her ex-husband after their 2022 divorce, arguing that it was an undisclosed matrimonial asset. In a court judgement published on Tuesday, it was determined that the asset was matrimonial, contrary to Ms Copinger-Symes’ ex-husband and estranged mother’s argument that the gift was “non-matrimonial”.
A former manager of the rock band INXS, Ms Copinger-Symes is a member of Australia’s wealthy Perez De La Sala family. Worth an estimated £550 million, the family made its money in shipping – Ms Copinger-Symes’ parents own a £300 million share of the fortune.
Arguing that the multi-million pound gift made by her mother to her ex-husband was pre-planned during the divorce and that she was owed a £14 million share of the money, Ms Copinger-Symes won a Family Court ruling in 2024.
Related
Major Copinger-Symes and Ms Copinger-Symes’ mother, Felicite Perez De La Sala, took the case to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the Perez De La Sala family withdrew ‘all financial and emotional support’ of Ms Copinger-Symes in 2017. Speaking about the financial gift in court, Major Copinger-Symes’ barrister, Richard Todd, argued that ‘it was manifest that they did not wish her to benefit from the fortune which had been retained’ and that the gift would not have been made had they known Ms Copinger-Symes would have received any of it.
[See also: Hollywood’s go-to divorce lawyer fronts ‘dump him’ fashion campaign]
The Court of Appeal’s dismissal of major Copinger-Symes and Ms Perez De La Sala’s case is a significant move in the name of financial transparency during divorce, argues family lawyer David Lillywhite, a partner at the firm Burgess Mee.
‘The Court of Appeal’s decision sends a clear message: financial transparency is not optional in divorce proceedings,’ he says. ‘When substantial wealth is involved, any gaps in disclosure can undermine the entire financial settlement.’
Content from our partners
Lillywhite notes that this case could set a precedent in future high-value divorce cases.
‘The judgment provides clarity for families navigating high‑value disputes and will likely influence how future cases involving family‑gifted assets are approached.
‘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.’
In order to avoid cases such as these, thorough and detailed measures should be taken during a divorce to gain a bird’s-eye view of each partner’s wealth, argues divorce lawyer Tom Quinn, a partner at the law firm Birketts.
‘Often we’ll have forensic accountants assisting us in this exercise because – we’re family lawyers at the end of the day. We’re not necessarily financial wizards.’
Quinn re-emphasises the judge’s ruling that Major Copinger-Symes should have disclosed his knowledge of the monetary gift when he initially had the chance.
‘Even though he did not have the money in his back pocket yet, he knew he was going to receive it, which is what the judges focused on,’ he tells Spear’s.
[See also: Husband ‘got away with blue murder’: Ex-High Court judge criticises divorce ruling]
Large sums of wealth, whether matrimonial or familial in a wider sense, can make a divorce more complicated, argues the head of legal firm Farrer & Co’s family law department, Claire Gordon.
‘Wider family disputes often sit in the background of HNW divorces and can significantly raise the temperature,’ says Gordon. ‘Where there are family businesses, trusts or intergenerational wealth structures, a divorce can trigger wider tensions about control, succession or disclosure.’
While emphasising that individuals going through a divorce should always be transparent about their finances, Gordon admits it can be difficult to resolutely prove that a partner is hiding their assets.
‘Direct evidence of concealment is rare; more often it’s the patterns – unexplained movements of money, gaps in bank statements, a lifestyle that doesn’t match declared wealth, or artificially depressed business valuations,’ she says.
‘What clients should not do is try to access the other party’s devices or documents covertly,’ she adds. ‘That risks breaching privacy and often backfires.’
This case shows that not disclosing assets during a divorce has financial implications aside from dividing marital wealth, Stacey Nevin, a divorce lawyer at the firm Kingsley Napley, says.
‘The cost consequences of this are significant, particularly for the husband,’ notes Nevin. ‘Not only has he had to meet his own legal costs of the set aside proceedings and appeal, but he will be facing a costs order for the wife’s costs.’
[See also: The best family lawyers]
