Girls in court ... The US Supreme Court may have had a deflating effect on Anna Nicole Smith's allure, however in London the Court of Appeal was skittish over one of the lasses from Tottenham Court Road's Spearmint Rhino Club ... Murky payments ... Shenanigans ... From Justinian's archive, March 2006
Anna Nicole Smith on her way to the US Supreme Court (pic: Reuters)
Dahlia Lithwick complained in Slate that even in the case of Anna Nicole Smith, the US Supreme Court "somehow scatters its own unique brand of boringness and uptightness over every drama it touches".
As Dahlia tantalising noted:
"[Anna Nicole] has stepped into the only place in America where her breasts have no power."
Not that every superior court is so drained of life, because we've come upon a wonderful instance of relaxed cheekiness that issued from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, in the case of the lap dancer and the loans.
It's a story as old as the oldest profession.
Lap dancer (Kay Hutchison) met R.O.B. (rich old bastard), in this instance Kieran Sutton.
She commenced a "relationship" with him, gouging a cosy £100,000 for "services rendered".
These included £800 for the pleasure of the dancer's company at dinner.
She ends the relationship after a year - she already has a boyfriend.
Life on Tottenham Court RdR.O.B. got nasty about the dumping and wanted his dosh back.
Sutton goes to court saying the monies were "loans". He recovers £73,000 and young Kay appeals on the grounds of "perversity" - but, alas, to no avail.
We're delighted to bring you tid bits of Lord Justice Ward's droll, but racy, leading judgment:
LORD JUSTICE WARD: The appellant is a lap dancer. I would not, of course, begin to know exactly what that involves. One can guess at it, but could not faithfully describe it. The [trial] judge tantalisingly tells us, at paragraph 21 of his judgment, that the purpose is "to tease but not to satisfy".
By about the end of 2002, or early in 2003, the appellant seems to have begun to tease the respondent. He, being a rich businessman, sought, no doubt, to enliven his lonely evenings in London by seeking entertainment at the Spearmint Rhino club in Tottenham Court Road where the appellant was then employed.
Having been tempted, he managed to obtain her telephone number and invited her to dinner. It was not exactly the traditional boy meets girl, 'let's have dinner, darling' kind of invitation.
It was an invitation which she accepted, but entirely on the basis that she would be there as his escort and, as his escort, she would provide the services of companionship and amusement, but for a consideration.
That consideration would amount, according to the judgment, to perhaps about £700 or £800 a night for the pleasure of her company at dinner.
But the arrangement was made on a number of occasions and, as they went on, the relationship changed and at some time early in 2003 it is common ground that the services included sexual services, for which even more money was paid as a consideration.
Whether or not Rule Two of the Spearmint Rhino Club had been breached, requiring that you could get no satisfaction, we do not know and fortunately do not have to decide.
[snip]
The [trial] judge, moreover, had evidence from a Miss Banks who, in the context of this case, has the most unfortunate nickname of Lolly. She, too, works at the Spearmint Rhino Club, and so knew both of these parties.
She gave evidence to the judge that on two occasions during the year, in conversation with Miss Hutchinson, Miss Hutchinson acknowledged that she was obtaining loans from Mr Sutton.
The judge believed her and that supported his finding.
The judge therefore had, it seems to me, ample evidence from which to reach the conclusion I have read from paragraph 56 of his judgment that the documents were supportive of Mr Sutton's case.
They were, in my view, overwhelmingly supportive of his case and they were more than sufficient to outweigh any challenges about the murky payments of the monies in and out of accounts designed to act as some kind of ledger for the financial transactions between these parties but, at the same time, provide some kind of cover, obscure though it may be, for his conducting the shenanigans with her, as a married man which his wife would not like to know about."
Appeal dismissed.