Wife and daughter of man behind one-hit wonder fight in court

The wife and daughter of a musician behind Seventies one-hit wonder earworm The Pushbike Song are facing off in a £1million court fight over his will.

Guitarist Freddy Wieland scored massive international success as a member of The Mixtures.

The group’s novelty track was a number one hit in Australia and New Zealand, as well as reaching number 3 in Ireland and number 2 in the UK.

Mr Wieland died aged 75 of cancer in 2018, leaving behind ex-wife Karen, their daughter Amber, plus his two daughters from a previous relationship, Jasmine and Jade Wieland.

However, in his final will he left everything to Jasmine and Jade, sowing the seeds of an inheritance battle with the two branches of his family now fighting in court over his estate.

Mr Wieland was initially guitarist with Aussie band The Strangers, before joining The Mixtures.

They found fame when, during a 1970 radio ban when Aussie stations refused to play music released by major labels, their cover of Mungo Jerry's In the Summertime reached Number 1 there.

The band followed that up with the stylistically similar Pushbike Song, which reached Number 2 on the UK charts, only beaten to the top spot by George Harrison's 'My Sweet Lord.'

The song recounts a trip around town on a pushbike, while chatting up girls, and was the feature of a video showing members of the band on their bikes.

Mr Wieland eventually set up home in the UK but that Number 2 hit in 1971 was the end for his stardom, although he featured as a mystery guest on the BBC's Never Mind the Buzzcocks in 2002.

He built a buy-to-let property empire in Buckinghamshire with his wife Karen Wieland, 64, now worth more than £1million.

Judge Nigel Gerald heard that the guitarist and Karen met in 1992, had a daughter Amber, and then married in 1996.

Mr Wieland already had two daughters - Jasmine, a Spain-based entrepreneur in an arts company, and Jade, who runs a beauty company in Sydney, Australia - from a previous relationship.

Freddy and Karen separated in 2013, reconciling briefly when he first became ill, before finally splitting up and beginning divorce proceedings soon afterwards, with Freddy moving full-time to Spain.

He died in 2018, a year after their decree nisi was pronounced, but before a decree absolute was sealed, with his final will leaving everything to Jasmine and Jade, appointing the former as administrator of his estate.

Karen and Jasmine are now fighting two court battles, with Karen suing for 'reasonable provision' - a fair share of her ex-husband's fortune - under the Inheritance Act 1975.

Jasmine for her part is fighting for a half share of the former couple's £1m property portfolio to go into her late dad's estate, whilst Karen claims it is all hers.

Karen's barrister, George Woodhead told the court: 'Karen's case is that when she and the deceased decided to divorce, they entered into a written agreement in respect of the properties and the ownership of them.

'Karen claims that, as part of an agreement following the separation, Freddy had agreed that she would have his beneficial interest in the properties for a payment of £50,000.'

He said that the deal was part of an agreement splitting all their wealth and Karen, as a former letting agent herself, had sourced, managed and rented out the properties, which had been purchased for her future benefit.

'Her case is that whilst she was working as a letting agent in 2002, she decided it would be sensible to provide for her retirement by acquiring buy to let properties,' he said.

'She ultimately purchased all 11 of the properties, and did so in joint names with the deceased.

'Her case is that she and the deceased jointly intended that the properties would provide an income for her during her retirement.

'It was Karen who sourced, purchased and managed each property - and Karen was the landlady when each property was let.'

But Jasmine's barrister James Kemp argued that the agreement Karen relies on is 'not valid' because Karen did not pay the full £50,000 before Freddy died.

He said the agreement had 'not been carried out' and has 'therefore been rescinded.'

He also claims that Karen did not disclose all of the relevant evidence about her financial dealings at the time of the agreement.

The issue of whether Freddy still held his shares in the properties at the time of his death is set to be decided at a trial at the county court in April next year.

Karen's claim against the estate for 'reasonable provision' will only resume after that issue has been decided.