RTR31R96
A man holds Australian banknotes in this photo illustration in Sydney May 8, 2012. Australia's government will map out its plan for a surplus budget on Tuesday as it aims to shore up its economic credentials with voters and shift attention away from scandals that threaten Prime Minister Julia Gillard's grip on power. REUTERS/Tim Wimborne

Late billionaire businessman Richard Pratt’s mistress, Madison Ashton, lost her bid to revive her claim on his estate on Monday. The former escort claimed that Pratt had made multi-million-dollar promises to her.

Ashton claimed that Pratt had promised to provide financial assistance to her as he asked her to become his mistress. She said that she had left the profession as she was promised an allowance, a car and a $2.5 million trust for each of her children. Ashton used to provide escort services between 2003 and 2004. Pratt died of prostate cancer in 2009, and Ashton sued Pratt’s estate in 2012.

Ashton told the court that Pratt had promised her to pay $500,000 every year. He allegedly promised to pay for her $36,000 annual rent bill. Otherwise, she said that he had promised to buy her a house in the eastern suburbs. According to Ashton, Pratt also promised to pay her $30,000 annually for travel costs.

ABC News reports that Ashton signed a $50,000 agreement as a settlement of all claims against Pratt. However, she dismissed receiving the amount. Ashton said that she was afraid of Sean Bowman, Pratt’s associate. It was Bowman, whom Ashton had a relation with, who gave her the document.

The Daily Telegraph reports that Bowman emailed Ashton in 2005 and offered $100,000 and a car “in full satisfaction of all claims against Mr Pratt.” Ashton apparently agreed to accept the offer in a reply mail. The NSW Court of Appeal said on Monday Ashton had provided her bank details in the reply mail and acknowledged the offer.

While the New South Wales Supreme Court acknowledged the conversations between the two, it dismissed Ashton’s claim saying that there was no intention of getting into a legal relationship. The Court of Appeal did not find enough evidence to “demonstrate that Mr Bowman executed any undue pressure on Ms Ashton to sign the document."

The judgement says that, while it is possible that Ashton was afraid of Bowman, there is no evidence that he threatened or pressurised her to sign the 2005 document. It also says that there was not enough detail in the original arrangement. Thus, it cannot be considered as a valid contract. According to the court, nothing can prevent Ashton getting back to her career of providing escort services.

Contact the writer: s.mukhopadhyay@IBTimes.com.au