Frivolous Claims: Legacy Of Liebeck vs. Mcdonald's In Central Asia

The development of legal institutions in societies with transforming legal systems, such as the countries of Central Asia, inevitably leads to an increased litigious mentality and the wider use of the judicial mechanism of the protection of rights. Unfortunately, this process may sometimes be accompanied by instances of frivolous or vexatious litigations.

It is crucial, however, to distinguish between claims that may be dismissed by a judge and claims that have no legal basis at all. The first category refers to meritless claims where a claimant acted in good faith when filing a claim. For example, the claimant truly believed that he/she had legal grounds to protect his/her breached rights, but due to a lack of relevant legal norms or the absence of evidence he/she lost their case. In contrast, the second category refers to a claim that is meritless and is not sustained by sufficient legal grounds to be considered in a court, is not aimed at the protection of rights, or is an abuse of a right.

Frivolous litigations often arise in the sphere of consumer rights protection, where the claimant is the consumer and the respondent is a retailer, supermarket, restaurant, or dealer, etc. One such well-known story is that of Mrs Stella Liebeck, who sued McDonald's Restaurants after she spilled hot coffee bought in a McDonald's store in her lap, eventually winning the case against the company.1 This case, as well as many other subsequent cases, triggered an increase in frivolous litigations in countries all over the world. Those of Central Asia are no exception.

Case study: Mr A purchases doughnuts from a supermarket in Tashkent. Once home, he discovers that the product's shelf life expired one day before he made the purchase. The next day, Mr A submits a complaint to the competent state agency authorised to handle consumer protection matters. Having considered the complaint, as well as the doughnuts themselves and the cashier's receipt, the state agency conducts an inspection of the supermarket. Following the inspection, the manager of the store is charged with administrative sanctions. Thereafter, Mr A files a court claim whereby he seeks non-pecuniary damages for the suffering caused to him by having been sold an expired product. The claimant's position is that, by selling him expired doughnuts, the respondent (the owner of the supermarket) could have caused severe damage to his or his relatives' health, or even life, had the doughnuts been...