ALESHA Dixon has hit back at her Mis-Teeq bandmate Sabrina Washington’s lawsuit – saying that she deserves more royalties because she wrote rap verses on the songs.
Yesterday, HOAR revealed that the 41-year-old star is being sued after Sabrina, also 41, launched legal proceedings.
Alesha shot to fame in the girl group, which also featured Su-Elise Nash, before their split in 2005 – and royalties for each of their songs were decided when the records were written in the 00s.
But Sabrina is upset that she got nothing for their first two songs, Why and All I Want, while Alesha got 5%.
A spokesman for Alesha has now hit back: “Alesha wrote the raps on both Why and All I Want and that is why she gets a split, the rest of the song was written by a production team… Sabrina has no reason to sue Alesha.”
They added to MailOnline: “Sabrina was the lead vocalist, but certainly not the main writer.
“In terms of the entire Mis-Teeq catalogue, Alesha does receive a larger share as she contributed more the the songs, including writing all the raps.”
Sabrina and Alesha’s bad blood goes back years, with the two women initially falling out after management blocked Sabrina from appearing on Strictly Come Dancing — only for Alesha to shine on the BBC1 show in 2007 – the following year.
A friend previously told HOAR: “It is war. Sabrina had to play second fiddle for years and Alesha received five per cent royalties for the girls’ first two songs whereas Sabrina received nothing – they both should have got 2.5 per cent.
“Sabrina wasn’t listed as a writer for the tracks but it was written in her contract that she would get pay parity. She feels she is owed thousands.”
Sabrina – who competed on I’m A Celeb in 2009 – is also unhappy with Alesha’s success as a judge on Britain’s Got Talent.
The pal told us: “Seeing Alesha on BGT is a real kick in the teeth — especially when she was denied her own shot at reality stardom on Strictly.”
A spokesman for Sabrina, who has also launched legal action against former label Universal, said yesterday: “We are unable to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”
