A legal dispute between a former government senator and his elderly former landlord is set to continue after the Supreme Court found there was possibly a “sabotage of procedural fairness”.

While Magistrates’ Court found that Margaret Harvey owed Curtis Richardson $2,300 for his security deposit, Ms Harvey appealed the matter in the Supreme Court on the basis that magistrate Tyrone Chin did not understand her position.

In a September 8 decision, Puisne Judge Shade Subair Williams ordered that the decision be quashed and heard by another magistrate.

“Various factors all point to a sabotage of procedural fairness which has left this court in real doubt that the appellant’s true position was understood by the court and that she herself understood the terms of how this matter was disposed by Mr Chin,” the judge wrote.

“For these reasons, this appeal must succeed.”

Mr Richardson launched the legal action against Ms Harvey as part of an ongoing legal dispute between the two over $19,000 in rental arrears.

While Mr Richardson claimed he was owed $2,500 for his security deposit, Ms Harvey said that he was responsible for damage to the property that exceeded the deposit value by $866.85.

The dispute came before Mr Chin on May 14, 2021, and the magistrate encouraged both parties to separately convene with Arisha Flood, a lawyer, in an effort to find a solution.

In an affidavit, Ms Harvey said that Ms Flood showed Mr Richardson photographs of damage and invoices, and that Mr Richardson acknowledged that he was responsible for the damage.

Ms Harvey’s affidavit said: “The respondent made a handwritten note dated January 31, 2021 confirming that a truck got stuck in the grass and caused damage, which he agreed to pay.

“However, when we appeared at court, the respondent refused to pay the full amount owed for the damages. Rather, the respondent suggested that we split that sum, which I agreed to, in an effort to bring about a quick resolution.”

She said when she returned to Magistrates’ Court in July for a hearing about the rental arrears, Mr Richardson told the court that he owed $2,943 less than previously claimed because of the security deposit decision.

Ms Harvey said she then realised the magistrate had awarded Mr Richardson “a benefit that neither party agreed to” and that she had only agreed to reduce the amount of money owed by about $400.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams said Ms Flood should not have allowed herself to be put in a position to advise opposing parties.

“This court is unable to bypass the appellant’s evidence that her position was not properly put to or understood by the magistrate,” she said.

“Such an assertion would be dangerous to ignore, particularly in these circumstances which involved Ms Flood privately convening with the respondent for reasons other than for the sole benefit of Ms Harvey.

“At the bottom line, the appellant’s case on appeal is that she did not properly understand the effect of Ms Flood’s representation to the court until she appeared for a subsequent hearing, ancillary to the proceedings for the rental deposit.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.