Cathy Jayne Britten, nee Pearce, tries to resume Supreme Court case over shuttered Adelaide Japanese bath house business

A former real estate mogul has copped a serve in court for trying to resurrect her Japanese bath house lawsuit – and been forced to concede she is insolvent.

Former tycoon Cathy Jayne Britten has been “bullying, harassing and extorting people” for “decades and decades” while being “enabled” by the legal process, a court has heard.

On Tuesday, the former $19 million rich-lister sought to resurrect her Supreme Court claim against her ex-landlords, their realtor and the former owners of her Japanese bath house business.

She claims she was “unlawfully” evicted from Soak House Adelaide – but Heather Cripps, from whom Ms Britten bought the business, urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

Cathy Jayne Britten, then Pearce, at the height of her 2000s fame …

… and atop a bin outside the shuttered Soak House Adelaide in mid-2024.

“There has been, for decades and decades with Ms Britten in court, documents that don’t add up, delays, excuses and confusion,” she told Justice Ben Doyle.

“It feels like Ms Britten, for decades, has been enabled to use the court process to bully, harass and extort people.”

Her husband, Daryl, told Justice Doyle the couple’s finances and health had suffered as a result of Ms Britten’s proceedings.

“It’s a pain in the arse, to be honest,” he said.

Since August 2004, Ms Britten has been trying to overturn the cancellation of her lease, by landlords John and Anita Dente, for the alleged non-payment of $9000 in rent.

Her claim against them, their realtor and Mr and Mrs Cripps was dismissed, but she has now asked that be overturned on appeal.

“The forfeiture was carried out unlawfully, following a prolonged period of harassment, misrepresentation, and commercial interference,” she alleges in her appeal papers.

The allegedly unpaid rent was, she alleges, “promptly paid under protest” and the company was “not actually in arrears”.

Ms Britten claims to have suffered “reputational damage and irreversible business losses”, and asks the court further order the Dentes to compensate her for her purported losses.

Cathy Britten arriving at the Supreme Court in Adelaide on Tuesday. Picture: Emma Brasier

Ms Britten in November 2024, after failing to convince a court to order property she claims is hers be returned at no cost.

In court on Tuesday, Justice Doyle noted Ms Britten is “presently an undischarged bankrupt” and so could not, by law, represent herself nor her business in court.

Ms Britten conceded that was so, but said the bankruptcy was “not valid” and she was challenging it in the Federal Court.

“The bankruptcy is being heard on May 24,” she said.

Justice Doyle replied: “That’s unlikely, given that is a Saturday.”

Ms Britten asked for an adjournment so that her husband, who is now the business’ director, could take over the appeal.

Justice Doyle ordered the proceedings against Mr and Mrs Cripps be dismissed, and granted Ms Britten “one further and, likely, final” adjournment of three weeks.

Outside court, Ms Britten said she was “really pleased” the case had “been given a breath of fresh air”.

“I’m looking forward to the truth getting out there and having my day in court,” she said.