A Canberra casino insider who claims he helped broker a lucrative sponsorship deal between the Brumbies and business giant Aquis was more than "a messenger boy" and should be compensated, a court has been told.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
John Stanley Beagle, 83, launched a civil case against the rugby club over the $8 million deal struck with Hong Kong-based developer and casino owner Aquis.
But Mr Beagle claims he was left out in the cold after helping broker the six-year deal, which was the largest in Brumbies history.
He claimed he helped connect the Brumbies and Aquis shortly before the company announced its purchase of Canberra casino, and was led to believe he would be given a "finder's fee".
Mr Beagle, a gaming consultant, did not enter into a contract and said he was never paid.
He is now suing the rugby club in the ACT Supreme Court, claiming "reasonable remuneration for work done and services provided".
A hearing of the case began before Associate Justice David Mossop on Monday.
Barrister Doug Hassall argued Beagle had performed services requested by the Brumbies, with the understanding he would get paid, which played a crucial role in the sponsorship deal and had "massive benefits" for the two parties.
"He was not just an officious bystander or a messenger boy, he assisted and enabled the deal," Dr Hassall said.
Dr Hassall said it would be unjust for the Brumbies to hold onto those benefits without proper compensation for Mr Beagle in line with industry norms.
The court heard an expert witness with experience in sports sponsorship had estimated that amount would be between 10 and 35 per cent of the overall value of the deal struck.
Dr Hassall said his client was involved with a series of incidents to help clinch the deal, including an early meeting with Brumbies executives where they discussed making presentations to Aquis senior managers.
He claimed he also pitched the deal, at the Brumbies' request, to Aquis management, and later briefed senior executives at the rugby club on the dynamics and Australian business interests of the billionaire Fung family.
Mr Beagle's lawyer argued his client carried out services "of considerable value" and it was very clear he expected to be paid for his work.
But lawyers for the Brumbies, led by barrister Richard Arthur, argued there had been no agreement Mr Beagle would get paid.
They said Mr Beagle had offered some introductory insights and there was no evidence that he had remained involved after the Brumbies took a primary role in the deal.
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
