A Melbourne engineer who claimed his former supervisor would “lift his bum and fart” on him is appealing a court decision that found he was not bullied.David Hingst sued his former employer Construction Engineering in 2017 seeking $1.8 million in compensation, but the case was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Victoria last April.
Justice Rita Zammit found that even if the farting occurred it “would not necessarily amount to bullying”.
The 56-year-old’s case came before the Court of Appeal on Monday.
He told the court “flatulence was a form of bullying” and that his ex-colleague Greg Short was a serial farter, AAP reported.
“I would be sitting with my face to the wall and he would come into the room, which was small and had no windows,” he told AAP after the hearing.
“He would fart behind me and walk away. He would do this five or six times a day.”
As a result of the constant farting, Mr Hingst sprayed deodorant on Mr Short and called him “Mr Stinky”.
At the original hearing, Mr Short said he didn’t recall doing it “but I may have done it once or twice, maybe”.
“But I can’t recall,” he said. “I don’t recall doing so, so I’m not flat out saying I didn’t or I did. I just can’t remember doing it. But if he alleges I did it.”
But Mr Short denied he was doing it “with the intention of distressing or harassing” Mr Hingst. “No, not at all, no,” he said.
Another former employee, Phillip Hamilton, told the court he recalled times Mr Hingst “got quite offended by some of the stuff that went on”.
“Obviously there were incidences where (Mr Short) had a propensity to walk over to the printer, which was next to me and I think (Mr Hingst) sat behind where the printer was and (Mr Short) would flatulate (sic), he would fart you know, and that would happen quite frequently,” Mr Hamilton said.
On Monday, Mr Hingst reiterated his farting claims. “He thrusted his bum at me while he’s at work,” he told the panel of judges, AAP reported.
“And you sprayed deodorant at him,” Justice Phillip Priest said.
In any case, Justice Priest said farts were not the key issue in Mr Hingst’s original claim, as it had focused more on alleged bullying phone calls.
But Mr Hingst said the flatulence had caused him “severe stress” and should still be taken into account.
He claimed Mr Short’s behaviour was part of a conspiracy to get rid of him and said his time at Construction Engineering caused him psychiatric injuries.
Mr Hingst, who has represented himself throughout the trial and appeal, is seeking leave to appeal on several grounds.
He claims he didn’t get a fair trial as he felt under pressure from Justice Zammit when questioning witnesses. He also felt the judge was biased against him.
But Justice Priest said the trial judge seemed to show “remarkable latitude” to Mr Hingst during the 18-day proceedings.
“The very distinct impression I get is you were given every opportunity to put your case,” he said.
The Court of Appeal judges will deliver their ruling on the appeal on Friday.
Credits: News.com.au
AAP
Comments
Post a Comment