RSS Feed
September 15th, 2011 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
AAP
The late billionaire Richard Pratt wanted to eliminate a mistress from his life at the cheapest possible price, says her lawyer, comparing her to a famous 19th Century courtesan who died in poverty.
Francis Douglas, QC, said Mr Pratt left former escort Madison Ashton in a similar plight to that of Lady Emma Hamilton, whose affair with Lord Horatio Nelson was the biggest scandal of its age.
Mr Douglas said Ms Ashton, who has taken legal action against Mr Pratt’s widow Jeanne in relation to his estate, should be compensated for the “hope and expectation … engendered in her heart and soul by the promises he made”.
Among those promises, Ms Ashton alleges, were an annual $500,000 allowance and two trust fund worth $2.5 million each.
A $100,000 Mercedes, $36,000 for rent, $30,000 for travel expenses, were also part of the alleged deal.
In return, she was to give up working as an escort to become his mistress.
But Ms Ashton claims to have only received $410,000 for her relationship with Mr Pratt, and is seeking damages for breach of contract.
After the conclusion of the NSW Supreme Court hearing, Ms Ashton said she was “very” confident of the outcome.
“I’m just happy it’s all over,” she said outside court.
Mr Douglas, continuing his analogy to the historic liaisons of Lady Hamilton, recounted his client’s evidence that according to an adviser of Mr Pratt, he would “say anything and do anything to have people like you in the sack”.
“I don’t deny that Richard has promised what he has said to you,” Pratt employee Tony Gray is alleged to have told her.
Mr Douglas said Mr Pratt had wanted to “eliminate (Ms Ashton) from his life at the least possible cost” after his long-term mistress Shari-Lea Hitchcock came back on the scene.
Mr Douglas referred to a $50,000 offer made to Ms Ashton as a final payment to drop all claims against the family.
In his closing submissions, Michael Henry, for the estate, told Justice Paul Brereton it should be accepted Ms Ashton had in fact read the document, despite her claims that she hadn’t.
In arguing that the case be thrown out, he said Ms Ashton had failed to explain the “extraordinary” delay in bringing the proceedings, changed her story a number of times, and given conflicting evidence.
“Ms Ashton as witness is prepared to say whatever is in her best interests at a given point in time,” Mr Henry said.
“She is just not believable.”
Mr Henry said at no time after February 2005 – when Ms Ashton wrote to Mr Pratt asking him to consider a “payment figure” – did she ask anyone for the money.
“If she genuinely believed she had an entitlement of the nature she now sues upon and claims, it is just inconceivable that she wouldn’t (follow it up),” he said.
Justice Brereton will hand down his decision on an unspecified date.
Posted in 
Tags: 
