Erin Molan dragged into AVO case between Kelly Landry and Anthony Bell
AFTER her name was sensationally dragged into the AVO court case of former Getaway presenter Kelly Landry, Erin Molan fired back.
FORMER TV presenter Kelly Landry thought “something was going on” between her husband Anthony Bell and Footy Show star Erin Molan and challenged him about their “odd” relationship.
A Sydney court yesterday heard how the estranged wife confronted Mr Bell — the “accountant to the stars” — about her fears in a series of heated text messages after Mr Bell won the Sydney to Hobart yacht race on December 28. Ms Molan was a crew member on his supermaxi Perpetual Loyal.
Ms Landry, 37, is seeking a final apprehended violence order against her husband after an interim order was granted earlier this year. The court order was brought against Mr Bell by police on her behalf.
Ms Landry fired off a text message that said: “I know about Erin. I just saw her run to you,” the Downing Centre Local Court heard on Tuesday.
Mr Bell’s barrister Ian Temby QC wanted to know if she thought they were having an affair. “Did you at the time suspect your husband of infidelity with that woman?”
“I suspected something was going on, not necessarily infidelity,” she replied. “I thought their relationship was odd.”
Outside court, Ms Molan said she’s “never had an intimate relationship with Anthony Bell” and her name was being “unfairly dragged” into a messy marriage dispute.
“Erin’s relationship with Anthony Bell has only ever been strictly professional, both as a client and a crew member on Perpetual Loyal,” a statement issued by her employer, the Nine Network, said.
While the case is “incredibly sad” for the family involved, it has “absolutely nothing to do” with Ms Molan, Nine said.
Ms Molan, 34, is a host on the network’s NRL Footy Show and last month announced her engagement to police officer Sean Ogilvy.
The court heard Mr Bell — who is also a celebrity accountant — told his wife he was going to call Ms Molan and tell her about the accusations. He told Ms Landry in a text: “I’m not wearing that. Calling her now to tell her ... [it’s] not fair to her or me”.
Ms Landry replied: “Whatever Ant, your behaviour after everything I’ve done for you is beyond wrong.”
The hostility that night was in part triggered by Mr Bell not thanking her enough in his victory speech and continued to build until the showdown via text messages. Ms Landry said the episode was the “straw that broke the camels back”.
The mother-of-two has told the court she felt threatened and intimidated by Mr Bell, who she says physically assaulted her twice throughout their five-year marriage.
Ms Landry then told him to “evacuate” his things from their hotel room. “Surely you are a decent enough person for that. The abuse stops here.”
She denied a suggestion by Mr Temby she made the trip to Hobart “to check up on” Mr Bell.
In re-examination by police prosecutor Laura Nightingale, she said there were a number of reasons why she went to Tasmania. “I wasn’t just there to have my photo taken as [has been] implied.”
The couple had been photographed standing close together, smiling, on-board Perpetual Loyal.
But Ms Landry said today being on-board wasn’t her choice. “I was dragged up on the boat after they docked ... I didn’t want to be there.”
KELLY LANDRY ACCUSED OF HYPOCRISY
Ms Landry denied she was a hypocrite in accusing Mr Bell of being financially “mean” to her, even though she enjoyed a lavish lifestyle with him.
Ms Landry and Mr Bell travelled overseas at least twice a year, flew business class, hired private jets and had a nanny and housekeeper working in their $12.5 million Watsons Bay mansion.
She was also showered with gifts, including designer bags, shoes and jewellery, the court heard.
Mr Temby put it to the former Nine Network presenter if it was correct one of her allegations before the court was that Mr Bell was “financially mean to you”. She said it was — at which point the lawyer detailed the lifestyle they enjoyed, including the Watsons Bay home being placed under both their names, and her husband giving her $1000 a week.
Ms Landry confirmed she made an affidavit where she described their lifestyle as “very high quality throughout our marriage.”
Mr Temby asked her if she was trying to demonstrate the “lifestyle you had at the expense of your husband” during ongoing divorce proceedings in the Family Court. When Ms Landry agreed, he pointed out the fact she was saying to Magistrate Robert Williams in the AVO case that Mr Bell was being “financially mean” to her.
Ms Landry said: “Just because it says this on paper … I had access to it at his behest, at his discretion.”
Mr Temby replied: “Does it strike you there is a degree of hypocrisy involved … [with] the proposition now before his honour?”
Ms Landry denied she was using the AVO application as leverage in the divorce proceedings in the Family Court.
“I wanted him to accept an undertaking in the family law proceedings that would be the same wording as the AVO so the matter could remain private but I could still be protected.”
She rejected “pretty much all” of Mr Bell’s claims about the funds he provided for her.
That included $300 for groceries, to which Ms Landry said: “Have you ever been shopping in a supermarket in the eastern suburbs? It’s at least double.”
She also disputed a claim he had paid her tax bill, suggesting he had “funnelled” money through her own tax file number.
She denied he had paid an $89,000 tax bill for her, insisting that it was his tax. “I haven’t been employed since 2011 so how could I accumulate all that tax?”
‘PAID LESS THAN THE NANNY'
In the days after the AVO was filed, Ms Landry told a psychologist Mr Bell was worth $100 million and she was paid “less than the nanny”. She told Ms Nightingale she got that $100m figure “from the papers”.
“He’s labelled a $100 million accountant to the stars, that’s what he is referred to ... And despite the many innuendo and suggestion of material things, the actual finances and money I had access to was less money than the nanny.”
She had a credit card in her name that money was deposited into, but aside from groceries and things for the children, she had to send invoices to Mr Bell’s EA to get anything paid.
The court heard Ms Landry viewed her Instagram account as necessary because it is “all about public profile” and something “you would want the public to believe.”
“Everyone who works in the television industry has social media,” she said.
Ms Nightingale asked her why she had made changes to an Instagram post involving her husband, where she thanked him for the “early Christmas present” of a trip to an exclusive resort. The post was accompanied by love emojis that were later deleted.
The alterations came after the AVO had been filed.
Ms Landry told the court: “Nobody wants everyone to know what someone goes through privately ... It’s not something you would air publicly by choice.”
Pressed about why she posted happy messages when there was trouble in the marriage, she said it was to “counteract” what was really going on.
“I didn’t want people to know what was happening. Airing [our] dirty laundry was not something I ever wanted to happen.”