An Australian businesswoman and former assistant to the rock band INXS has taken her family to court over her late father's fortune worth more than $500million.

Robert Perez de la Sala, known to some as Bobby, died in July 2022 at 86, after building his wealth from an international shipping company run mainly out of Hong Kong and Singapore.

After Bobby's death, the bulk of his estate was left to his wife, Felicite Terrill Perez de la Sala, in a will signed in 2019 and partially updated in 2020, according to court documents from March.

No provision was made for his daughter Maria-Christina Perez de la Sala, who has previously worked as an assistant to INXS's European manager.

A few days before Bobby's death, he transferred $20million to Maria-Christina's ex-husband, former British SAS major James Copinger-Symes, according to the documents. Maria-Christina also alleges that her mother gave her three siblings a total of US$67million (AU$95.6million).

Maria-Christina later launched proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court seeking $20million from the estate of her father.

'Christina believes that these monies came from her father's estate,' NSW Supreme Court Justice Guy Parker said.

'She herself received nothing from her mother.' 

The legal claim was brought against her mother and siblings, seeking a family provision order under the NSW Succession Act. Under NSW law, such claims are determined on financial need, not simply whether a will is perceived as unfair.

In Justice Parker's decision, he said 'there is nothing unusual about the family provision claim' but noted a breakdown in family relations.

'The falling-out was exceptionally bitter,' he wrote.

'Indeed, rather than James being excluded from the family as a result of the breakdown of his marriage [by 2019], Christina was excluded instead.'

Justice Parker summarily dismissed Maria-Christina's trust claim and struck out the inter-generational estoppel claim, which typically occurs when an older relative allegedly promises someone an interest in property, like a business.

The judge added that Maria-Christina had leave to 'replead' the claim that she had allegedly received promises from her father.

As the legal row continues in Australia, Maria-Christina's claims of equitable entitlements to her family wealth have overlapped with separate litigation in Singapore.

The relatives disputed among themselves over ownership of different companies that were part of the Perez de la Sala dynasty in Singapore.

In February 2024, Maria-Christina's relatives, including her mother and ex-husband, launched an anti-suit injunction in the High Court of Singapore to 'restrain' her claims in NSW proceedings, court documents reveal.

After legal action taken by the Perez de la Salas in both Singapore and Australia, the feud came to a head this week in the NSW Court of Appeal.

The court heard that Maria-Christina believed her mother, ex-husband, brother and two sisters might move the High Court of Singapore to grant further interim anti-suit injunctions to stop her from progressing her NSW claim if a stay was not granted, but accepted an undertaking from the family that they would not pursue such relief while the appeal proceeds.

'She also referred to the substantial costs she had incurred since February 2024, defending multiple proceedings,' Justice Kristina Stern said in her decision on Wednesday.

'[She] said that she believed that it was part of the respondents' global litigation strategy to deploy their substantial wealth to stifle her access to justice.'

The opposing family members argued that Maria-Christina's leave to appeal in the NSW court had 'weak prospects'.

'They also contended that there was no real risk that Christina would suffer prejudice if a stay was not granted,' Justice Stern said. 

'In this regard, they contended that the proposed undertaking should have given Christina comfort that there was no risk of an anti-suit injunction being granted in Singapore which would preclude her from prosecuting her application for leave to appeal in this court.'

Justice Stern refused to grant a stay but ordered the appeal in the NSW court to be fast‑tracked for a hearing on August 4.