Gallagher also told Judge Martin O’Dwyer that he would like Oasis to reform but did not anticipate that being possible.
The rock star had discussed his prospects during evidence at a private family court hearing following a money dispute with ex-wife Nicole Appleton, 41, a singer with All Saints.
Limits were placed on what could be reported of the hearing – staged a few months ago in the Central Family Court in London – but details emerged in Judge O’Dwyer’s ruling on the case.
He explained how Gallagher, 43, had been a member of the “well-known music group Oasis”. He said: “It was formed in 1991 and discontinued in 2009, it is said after an argument between [Gallagher] and his brother [Noel, 48].
“[Gallagher] says there are no plans to reform and, although he would like to do so, he does not anticipate there is a possibility currently of any such reform.”
The judge added: “Although he expressly would like to re-enter the music business, currently he says there is no prospect of that.”
• READ MORE: Noel Gallagher: No serios offer for Oasis reunion
Gallagher had said his “current business ventures” were “within” a fashion company called Pretty Green.
But Judge O’Dwyer concluded Gallagher had “downplayed” his prospects of making money from music.
“[Gallagher’s] earning capacity is immensely difficult to predict,” said the judge. “It is entirely unclear what his potential income is. In his evidence to me he clearly downplayed his prospects for earning in the music business in the future.”
The judge said Gallagher’s “sources of income” included Pretty Green, the marketing of his “back catalogue” and touring. He said the singer had also “acquired a number of properties”.
The judge added: “However, he is a man of worldwide fame. He has proved … that there is the potential for him to earn much greater sums.” The judge also suggested Gallagher could boost his income by “celebrity appearance”.
The judge said Gallagher and Appleton had started living together about 15 years ago, wed in 2008 and separated in 2013, and they have a son together. He said they had “lived a very good lifestyle”.
However, he raised concerns about the amount of money the couple had spent on lawyers.
He said: “The level of costs in this case, totalling over £800,000, are manifestly excessive for the determination of the dispute, which involves capital sums not much greater at the end of the day than £10 million.”