Fresh details emerge in court about Roxy Jacenko’s ‘$10m house giveaway’ promotion
Roxy Jacenko’s interviews about a ‘$10m house giveaway’ may have been ‘deceptive and misleading’, the PR guru’s lawyer has conceded in court.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
PR queen Roxy Jacenko’s lawyer has conceded in court a series of interviews the PR queen did about a controversial “$10 million house giveaway” competition may have been “deceptive and misleading” after a major contract stipulation was not publicly disclosed.
It comes as the judge overseeing the case said the truth of what Ms Jacenko said publicly about what was being offered as part of the promotion was “highly questionable”, and that detractors had frequently referred to it as a “scam”.
The NSW Supreme Court this week heard Ms Jacenko partnered with Sydney businessmen Youssef Tleis and Kassim Alaouie earlier this year to launch a promotion which saw people who signed up to Ms Jacenko’s online business course, Brand Bootcamp, entered into a draw that would give one of them a chance to win a luxury home at Cronulla.
The property, billed as being worth $10 million, was owned by Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie.
Ms Jacenko was responsible for publicising the competition under the terms of an agreement between the trio as directors and shareholders in the company behind the promotion, Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Ltd.
The court heard the same agreement also stipulated that the house would only be put forward as a prize if the competition generated at least $11.5m in total revenue.
However, The Daily Telegraph can now reveal that condition was never made public by Ms Jacenko during a whirlwind publicity tour which included interviews with Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O Henderson on KIIS FM and Channel 7’s The Morning Show.
The clause was also missing from the competition’s formal terms and conditions on the Roxy’s Bootcamp website.
Ms Jacenko’s lawyer, Gregory George, was asked about the omission during a contested application by Ms Jacenko to have liquidators appointed to the failed business.
Mr George told Justice Anthony McGrath SC he could not explain why it was missing from the website’s documentation, but agreed it should have been included.
He confirmed Ms Jacenko had seen the terms and conditions, and had signed the promotions agreement in which the clause was stipulated.
The court also heard Mr Tlies had approved the manner in which Ms Jacenko was to promote the competition.
“I’m not looking to absolve Ms Jacenko,” Mr George said, but argued it appeared to be a case where all three shareholders either “didn’t understand the promotion or it was convenient for them not to do so”.
The court heard Ms Jacenko sought the appointment of provisional liquidators due to, among other reasons, allegations that Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie had engaged in “misleading conduct” over their handling of the promotion. The pair denies any wrongdoing.
However, in court, Justice McGrath asked Mr George if the same could be said of his client’s actions.
“I thought in your submissions there was a flavour that [Ms Jacenko] wanted the company to have external controllers in it because other people were misleading and deceptive in the way in which the promotion was being run?” Justice McGrath said.
“Yes,” Mr George responded.
“Do you accept that your client has been effectively conducting herself in the same way that she’s criticised others?” Justice McGrath asked.
“For a few days, yes,” Mr George replied.
Justice McGrath told the court he would not be making any findings about “whether anyone did or did not mislead”.
Mr George further claimed Ms Jacenko had been proactive in attempting “to do something” when lawyers raised potential legal issues with the promotion.
The court heard Ms Jacenko had raised concerns with her partners within days of the competition commencing and asked them to agree to shut it down and offer refunds, saying she would “wear the costs” she had already incurred.
Ms Jacenko says the offer was rejected and she was persuaded to continue with the competition and its promotion as planned.
However, the court heard she pulled the plug altogether in May amid further concerns over the promotion and the ongoing fallout between her, Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie, and offered to repay all entrants.
“As soon as she understood what the situation was, (she) wanted the trade promotion to stop and then ultimately has given or paid in to her solicitor’s trust account the sum of $687,000, her money, hard money, not the company’s money, so that every customer up until about 11 May may be refunded,” Mr George said.
Justice McGrath agreed to appoint a provisional liquidator Cathro & Partners to the company, lamenting the sorry state of affairs that brought the matter before the court.
“The competing interlocutory applications arise in the extraordinary circumstances of the rapid creation and almost equally rapid deterioration in the relationships between Ms Jacenko, Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie over a business venture involving the promoting of training courses offered by Ms Jacenko to the public using a highly questionable promotion scheme,” he said.
“On any view, the promotion has attracted significant adverse publicity … this has led to online commentary which has been extremely derogatory about the promotion itself and those involved in it.”
The case, which still has some way to go before the court, will next be heard later this month.
‘Horrifying’: Man found dead on footpath after being stabbed in neck
A major manhunt is under way after a man was found stabbed in the neck on the footpath outside a south Sydney unit block described by residents as a “horrifying” place.
Read more
‘Bang’ heard as southwest Sydney house catches alight
Emergency services have cordoned off a road in southwest Sydney after a fire ignited in a suburban garage before nearby residents heard a loud ‘bang’.
Read more