Maria-Christina Copinger-Symes who was formally the band manager for the pop group “INXS”, married her husband, James Copinger-Symes in 1998. They had 4 children and her family, the Perez de la Sala dynasty made its wealth in international shipping. Maria-Christina’s relationship with her family had been strained for a long time.
When Maria-Christina and James separated in 2022 they agreed a financial remedy order the terms of which provided for Maria-Christina to pay James 1.2m, leaving her with approximately £5.25m. However, this settlement would later unravel in dramatic fashion culminating in a case in the appeal court in 2026.
Non-disclosure of gifts by husband
After the divorce order was approved, Maria-Christina discovered that her mother had secretly gifted James approximately £27.6m paid shortly after they separated. The evidence showed that James knew by late 2020 or early 2021 that he was likely to receive a substantial gift from his former mother-in-law. The family court held in August 2024 that this non-disclosure was “deliberate material non-disclosure” and set aside the original financial consent order, allowing Maria-Christina to pursue around £14m of the gifted sum. The case also saw Maria-Christina’s mother intervene. This is an unusual dynamic where a parent sided against their own daughter and financially supported their former son-in-law instead.
What are the legal issues at the heart of this case?
Disclosure
There is a duty of full and frank disclosure which includes disclosure of all relevant financial information, including anticipated gifts or windfalls. The court determined that James’ failure to disclose the forthcoming multi-million pound gift materially affected the fairness of the 2022 financial settlement.
Matrimonial versus non-matrimonial assets
James argued that the gifts were non-matrimonial and asserted that they were made on the condition that Maria-Christina would receive no share. The court emphasised that the characterisation of an asset does not negate the duty to disclose nor does it prevent the court from reconsidering fairness.
Third party influence and intervention
The involvement of Maria-Christina’s mother was notable not only for its emotional impact but because it introduced as additional level of financial complexity.
The Court of Appeal 2026 Judgment
On 17 March 2026 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals brought by both James and Maria-Christina’s mother and upheld the family court decision that the non-disclosure justified setting aside the earlier financial order. The court concluded that:
- The undisclosed gifts materially affected the division of assets at the time of divorce.
- The husband had a clear duty to disclose this knowledge of the anticipated gifts.
- The wife’s claim to a share could proceed.
This decision sends a clear message that financial transparency is not optional but obligatory.
See the full decision here – James Morgan Copinger-Symes v Maria-Christina Copinger-Symes & Anor [2024] EWFC 415
What we can learn for the case
The Copinger-Symes case is a striking example of how wealth, secrecy and fractured family relationships can converge to create legal complexity. It also reinforces the fundamental rule that fairness in divorce proceedings depends on full and frank financial disclosure.
How Moore Barlow can help
At Moore Barlow, we understand that family and divorce matters can be emotionally challenging and complex. Our experienced team of family law solicitors provide practical and sensitive advice to help you navigate these complex and emotional situations.
Whatever situation you find yourself in, we are here to help with an accomplished team of family law solicitors who have years of experience assisting those who require specialist legal advice.
