In case you are wondering about the ‘mercy’ in the title, it requires pronouncing, even singing, in your best Roy Orbison voice, to properly understand its relevance to the subject matter of this case!
As regular readers will know, ordinarily, I try to keep these updates to topics that I believe businesses may find relevant or even come across from time to time. They are designed to inform but also to entertain.
Every now and then however, a case comes along that is so fascinating in its right it justifies its own update, and this is certainly one of them. I would be surprised if the facts in this matter or the issues addressed are relevant to your business. Hopefully not. It is just a very unusual case but certainly worth a read.
Recently the Supreme Court in Brisbane was called upon to deliver a decision in the latest batch of litigation arising from the antics of Mr. Damian O’Carrigan, Leighton Contractors’ former finance manager.
You may recall Mr. O’Carrigan is presently serving a 15-year jail term, having being found guilty of defrauded the company of $20.7 million.
Although Mr. O’Carrigan was not a party to this case, it arose directly as a consequence of his actions. The subject matter of this case was the claim brought by his former employers against an escort whose services he retained for 8 years.
In what is now widely known as ‘Pretty Woman’ case (following statements given to the court by the defendant, Ms. Belinda Leonard) Leighton brought litigation to recover the monies paid to her by Mr. O’Carrigan during the period she was his paid mistress. Monies amounting to more than $325,000 from the funds he misappropriated from Leighton.
The facts, although not of the type you encounter often, are relatively straightforward. Mr. O’Carrigan met Ms. Leonard through a website called ‘Australian Babe’and began a long term relationship with her.
During that relationship, she provided him with a number of services which included regular sex, marriage counselling (he was of course married) and advice on horse breeding (this is not intended to be a euphemism).
Ms. Leonard in evidence told the court that she had sacrificed considerable earnings as a paid escort of up to $4000 per week to be at Mr. O’Carrigan’s call and to exclusively provide sex to him. She alleged that the relationship was strictly contractual, and that the monies she received were in return for the services she provided.
She attempted to persuade the court that the relationship was one of employment and consequently that the payments, which included a substantial contribution to the build cost of her house, were provided as consideration for the services rendered.
Leighton argued to the contrary, claiming that Ms. Leonard was nothing more than a paid mistress and consequently any monies received by her as gifts or tokens that came from the funds misappropriated by Mr. O’Carrigan, were recoverable.
Justice David Boddice who decided the case agreed with Leighton. He found for Leighton, concluding that
“these transactions are consistent with a relationship of affection”
He determined that the sums of $294,160.39 and $24,000 USD that Ms. Leonard received from misappropriated monies was recoverable.
When providing evidence to the court regarding her relationship, Ms. Leonard candidly told the court:
“It was a financial risk for me and it wasn’t Pretty Woman … there wasn’t going to be a happy ending.”
How right she was!