Man Launches Appeal To Sue 'Mr Stinky' Boss For 'Repeatedly Farting On Him'
| Last updated
Remember the man who tried to sue his boss for repeatedly farting on him, only to lose the case? Well, he's refusing to give up without a fight and he's launched an appeal to his $1.8AUSD million (£973,190) case.
David Hingst from Melbourne filed a suit against Construction Engineering last year due to his boss Greg Short, who he dubbed 'Mr Stinky', repeatedly farting on or near him.
However, a Supreme Court Judge found that breaking wind on or near someone didn't necessarily constitute bullying.
Now, Hingst, 56, has taken his case to the Court of Appeal where he's claiming that 'flatulence was a form of bullying'.
Speaking to AAP after his hearing, he said: "I would be sitting with my face to the wall and he would come into the room, which was small and had no window.
"He would fart behind me and walk away. He would do this five or six times a day."
He also said that Short - who was his manager at the time - verbally abused him over the phone and would 'taunt him with gestures'.
He told the court Short 'thrusted him bum at me while he's at work'.
At the original trial, Short reportedly defended himself by saying: "Look, I don't recall doing it, but I may have done it once or twice, maybe.
"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."
He also said he hadn't done it was the intention of causing distress or to harass Hingst.
The court also heard that Hingst had given him the nickname 'Mr Stinky' and that he had sprayed deodorant at him on occasion.
Justice Phillip Priest pointed out that the farting wasn't the 'key issue' in his original case, which centred more on the phone calls.
But Hingst insisted that the farting be taken into account as it had caused him 'severe stress'.
He believes Short's behaviour was an attempt to get rid of him and says he has been left with 'psychiatric injuries' after working at the firm.
Hingst is seeking an appeal based on his claims that he wasn't given a fair trail the first time 'round and that 'Supreme Court Justice Rita Zammit was biased against him'.
But Justice Priest disagreed and said the judge showed 'remarkable latitude' to Hingst, who represented himself.
The Court of Appeal will announce their decision on Friday.