Bizarre, intriguing civil cases and decisions in the year 2022

A gavel.

Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group

On December 25, 2022, this column referred to criminal cases of the year 2022 whose decisions either provoked bemusement or disdain in terms of public perception of justice and fairness. This could be the same with regard to civil cases, that is court cases in which the issue is not that of a criminal act by a party.

The first case is one that was decided towards the end of the year 2022, where a court ordered a commercial airline operator to compensate a Brazilian model and social media influencer Juliana Nehme by paying for her psychotherapy sessions to alleviate the psychological harm done to her by a discriminatory act by the airlines.

The claim was that the Brazilian, who is also a plus-sized model, had booked a flight with the airline to travel back to her country from the Middle East. On presenting herself on the date of the flight, the model was told that she could not board the flight. The reason given was that she was too big for her seat.

The court ordered that the airline must pay for psychiatric or psychological treatment for the influencer by a trusted professional. The treatment would consist of a weekly session for one year at an amount that was to be deposited in the model’s bank account. This was rare relief by a court where one would have expected financial compensation or an order for refund of the price of the ticket.

But another claim of discrimination by Tayo Otokiti did not end successfully for the claimant. The claimant filed a lawsuit against his employers, claiming racial discrimination.

 The issue was that Mr Otokiti, a guard who worked for a firm that provides security for Premier League club Manchester United, was dismissed after being found watching television in a special part of the stadium reserved for directors. Prior to that that he had been found asleep in the security control room. The judge dismissed the claim for racial discrimination, saying “Any reasonable person would know that the area where he was found watching television was a restricted area.”

Mistaken view

 She added that at the very least, the claimant knew it was not a place to watch television while on duty. The claimant had a mistaken view that, out of season, the importance of the East stand was downgraded, in seeking to justify his conduct.

In Australia, another court case between neighbours attracted attention for what would appear to have been a petty dispute over the right of way by a neighbour whose property is landlocked and needed access through the adjacent property to get to public roads. The neighbour over whose property access was required filed a case seeking to limit this right of access.

A judge thought the claims were all out of proportion. The property owner had sought a court order to prohibit his landlocked neighbour from using leaf-blowers to clean their end the property and had 17 CCTV cameras facing the neighbour’s property with the reminder that they were being watched.

In dismissing the claims and upholding the right of the neighbours to the right of way, Justice Francois Kunc said that most property owners are required to live in proximity with their neighbours and this requires concessions and mutual tolerance which if absent results in conflicts that get out of proportion. Simply put, the judge’s view was that the case was not good use of the court’s time.

But that was not the only petty feud between neighbours that found its way to the courts.

Glenn Kinnersley and his wife filed a lawsuit in which they sought to block planning permission that had been given to their neighbour regarding some revamping of the latter’ s property. The claim was that their neighbour’ s proposal of converting the property was a ‘suburban' style barn conversion — complete with 'flat box roof' — would spoil the stately image of the Kinnersleys’ property in Kent.

Dismissing their challenge, Judge Walden-Smith said there was nothing in the claim that showed that the planning permission granted by the council had been defective as to have a basis for setting it aside.

Still on the issue of homes, the UK had a case between siblings over the fate of a home they had inherited. Lady Rosamond had left her estate to her two children in equal shares, including a £2 million Leigh Hill House.

The son and executor of the mother’s will Thomas Viscount Savernake and his sister, Bo Bruce, could not agree on how to share this property. The latter wanted it preserved within the family and declined to sell it while his sister wanted it sold so that her share of their mum’s estate could be given to her. Bo Bruce sued her brother a decade after their mother’s death.

In February, 2022 the judge, John Linwood, termed it an unnecessary case of sibling distrust and ordered the removal of the Viscount as administrator of the estate because he had 'ignored his responsibilities' to his sister as executor of the will.

Britain’s worst landlord

Another property owner, Fergus Wilson, known as Britain’s worst landlord, will have to pay the Ashford Borough Council a significant amount of money for his nuisance of barraging the council and its employees with insulting and rude letters and telephone calls over a period of 10 years.

During the case, the council’s lawyers produced more than 400 copies of correspondence sent by Wilson to council officials between February 2016 and July 2020.

In making the orders of a permanent injunction against the landlord to never send any other communication to the council or its officers directly, the judge said the defendant’s conduct went beyond merely irritating and annoying, it was deliberately offensive.

In addition to the injunction, Mr Wilson was ordered to pay more than 150,000 pounds to the council as compensation for the harassment of the council’s employees.

The case which for me takes the prize for balancing the scales is that of the Indian lawyer who battled in a case for 22 years over what some may say is the puny amount of 20 rupees. Tungnath Chaturvedi sued a railway company in 1999.

His claim was that the clerk who collected the fare overcharged him by 20 rupees more than he should have for two tickets on the train from Mathura to Moradabad in 1999. Following a refusal to give him a refund after a demand, Mr Chatrurvedi sued the company for a refund of the 20 rupees.

After about 100 court attendances for the case over 22 years, a court awarded the lawyer compensation and ordered the railway company to pay 12 per cent interest on the 20-rupee over-charge for each of the 22 years, totalling 280 rupees and a further 15,000 rupees as compensation in May, 2022.

 For those who think that the evidently tight-fisted lawyer’s litigation was over a trifle, he had this to say: This case can be an inspiration to others: 'One doesn't need to give up even when the fight looks tough.'

But a case that had no inspiration whatsoever and was instead a misfortune was that of Vicky Fortune. While employed by an architectural firm, she stole a total of £65,000, which she used on luxuries. She was tried, convicted and jailed for 16 months.

 However, the injustice of her itchy fingers befell her employers when in May 2022, a judge allowed her to refund only a nominal amount of £1 because she had no assets. Not many persons will think that the misfortune that Ms Fortune visited on her former employer was just or fair.

 Mr Owino is Head of Legal at Nation Media Group PLC.