For
him the alias is Smith; for her the alias is Jones: judicial disguises used in
the High Court to discreetly hide identities of the successful businessman and
the sex worker disputing ownership of a $500,000 advance.
Recently widowed, Mr
Smith met Ms Jones at a massage parlour.
Over the subsequent four years their relationship moved from a purely
commercial arrangement for sexual services to that of a sugar daddy and his
mistress. The court was told Mr Smith
arranged for regular payments into her bank account of between $5000 and $2500 per
month. She accompanied him to social
events, the theatre and concerts. He met
her son and paid for mother and son to travel overseas to visit their home
country. He bought her clothes,
jewellery and an expensive car. He paid
$50,000 for renovations to her house and made a flat available for her son at a
modest rental. At Ms Jones suggestion,
they began looking for a business investment. Ideas canvassed were a business
or an investment property to rent out.
The intent was to provide a secure financial future for Ms Jones. Nothing suitable was found. Evidence was given that in December 2012 Mr
Smith created a $500,000 term deposit in Ms Jones name. Mr Smith was to describe this deposit as an
expression of good faith, as a substitute for the purchase of investment assets
originally planned. Two months later
their relationship ended with Ms Jones claiming the $500,000 deposit was a
gift; Mr Jones claiming it was a loan.
Justice Andrews ruled
that the term deposit was not a gift, it was a conditional loan. There was an implicit agreement between the
two that the loan was conditional on their relationship continuing and in the
interim Ms Jones was entitled to interest accruing on the term deposit. Her entitlement to the money ended when the
relationship ended. Ms Jones was ordered
to repay the $500,000 advance together with all interest earned on the term
deposit as from April 2013.
Smith
v. Jones – High Court (30.10.14)
14.051