Supreme Court Judgment

Miley Byrne · 09-10-2014 2:16pm #1

Got an email from the GUI about this while ago

http://www.gui.ie/home/news/press-statement-gui-welcomes-supreme-court-decisio

stitcheddepin · 09-10-2014 2:29pm

ha ye, I remember this. it was the handicap secretary he was going after, looking for 10 million for reducing his handicap over a couple of seasons. madness

wally79 · 09-10-2014 2:35pm

denisoc16 wrote: »

Got an email from the GUI about this while ago

http://www.gui.ie/home/news/press-statement-gui-welcomes-supreme-court-decisio

Why exactly was he taking them to court?

gorfield · 09-10-2014 2:36pm

Left Hermitage and moved to Clare, now a member in Spanish point i heard.

Miley Byrne · 09-10-2014 2:46pm

wally79 wrote: »

Why exactly was he taking them to court?

Got a few cuts that he didn't want I believe. Throw "Thomas Talbot golf" into Google there and you will see he seems like a very likeable fella

Edit: not to be confused with http://www.thomastalbotgolflessons.com/golf-lessons obviously!!!

John Divney · 09-10-2014 2:58pm

How many golfers sit on the Supreme Court does anyone know out of interest.

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 4:45pm

gorfield wrote: »

Left Hermitage and moved to Clare, now a member in Spanish point i heard.

Please don't imply things about players or clubs, if you have something to state then state it, otherwise don't.
You got very upset in the past when people mentioned your name on here in connection with things you had done, afford others the same rights you demanded.

Goldenjohn · 09-10-2014 6:59pm

I wonder how much this cost the GUI, hermitage etc..

godtabh · 09-10-2014 7:19pm

Goldenjohn wrote: »

I wonder how much this cost the GUI, hermitage etc..

Not as much as the lad who lost!

JOSman · 09-10-2014 7:53pm

Were costs awarded?

Goldenjohn · 09-10-2014 8:17pm

JOSman wrote: »

Were costs awarded?

Apparently not yet...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/amateur-golfer-loses-defamation-case-after-83-days-in-court-1.1958145

woodoo · 09-10-2014 10:48pm

This is a great decision. Handicap building is a major problem for amateur golf these days. Handicap Secretaries need to be able to do their jobs without fear of being taken to court.

abff · 10-10-2014 12:58am

The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish. The only winners were the lawyers who stacked up huge fees. If only they would change the law so that lawyers who took on spurious and vexatious claims had to pay the other side's costs. That would put a stop to their gallop. Can't see it happening though.

Goldenjohn · 10-10-2014 7:58am

abff wrote: »

The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish. The only winners were the lawyers who stacked up huge fees. If only they would change the law so that lawyers who took on spurious and vexatious claims had to pay the other side's costs. That would put a stop to their gallop. Can't see it happening though.

He represented himself in court.

GreeBo · 10-10-2014 8:00am

Goldenjohn wrote: »

He represented himself in court.

The gui didn't though, so the point stands. Unless he covers their costs we all pay more because of him.

slave1 · 10-10-2014 9:26am

GreeBo wrote: »

The gui didn't though, so the point stands. Unless he covers their costs we all pay more because of him.

We should not have to pay anything 'more' because organisations with proper risk management strategy should have legal representation on yearly retainer flat fee

blackwhite · 10-10-2014 9:33am

slave1 wrote: »

We should not have to pay anything 'more' because organisations with proper risk management strategy should have legal representation on yearly retainer flat fee

You pay a retainer for general advice, etc.

Once any actual litigation starts you will get billed seperately for anything related to that.

To avoid additional costs from being brought to court the GUI would have to actually employ solicitors/barristers full time.

slave1 · 10-10-2014 10:08am

blackwhite wrote: »

You pay a retainer for general advice, etc.

Once any actual litigation starts you will get billed seperately for anything related to that.

To avoid additional costs from being brought to court the GUI would have to actually employ solicitors/barristers full time.

Depends on your agreement, I negotiated a legal risk agreement at my last place to include court proceedings, you'd be surprised when you put stuff out to tender how costs vary, it was cheaper to go with a court proceedings contract than our previous traditional retainer...

blackwhite · 10-10-2014 10:40am

slave1 wrote: »

Depends on your agreement, I negotiated a legal risk agreement at my last place to include court proceedings, you'd be surprised when you put stuff out to tender how costs vary, it was cheaper to go with a court proceedings contract than our previous traditional retainer...

Did that include JC/SC costs?

I've never heard of a barrister being willing to accept an up-front flat fee when they've no idea of what hours will actually be required.

slave1 · 10-10-2014 12:00pm

Don't want this to wander OT so suffice to say we had a steady historical record of litigation and worked off that + 20% and firms were happy to quote, perhaps firms don't want to talk about it but they do it alright

blackwhite · 10-10-2014 2:31pm

slave1 wrote: »

Don't want this to wander OT so suffice to say we had a steady historical record of litigation and worked off that + 20% and firms were happy to quote, perhaps firms don't want to talk about it but they do it alright

I'm guessing this was why you were able to do it - not something I've ever heard of being done before.

I'd doubt the GUI would have such a record of litigation so it wouldn't really be feasible for them to try and have something like that in place.

John Divney · 10-10-2014 2:38pm

As far as the GUI goes, if any organisation is getting mates rates it's them, possibly after the GAA.

I wouldn't be overly worried about costs.

First Up · 10-10-2014 3:35pm

John Divney wrote: »

As far as the GUI goes, if any organisation is getting mates rates it's them, possibly after the GAA.

I wouldn't be overly worried about costs.

It is my understanding that both the GUI and Hermitage have incurred enormous costs. If there is proper justice they will have these awarded but I don't know what are the chances of recovering them.

Terrible business.

John Divney · 10-10-2014 4:06pm

First Up wrote: »

It is my understanding that both the GUI and Hermitage have incurred enormous costs. If there is proper justice they will have these awarded but I don't know what are the chances of recovering them.

Terrible business.

In comparison to Joe Soap defending a civil case to the Supreme Court I'm saying, they are probably not going to pay near as much due to their connections.

Not that the case should have gone on for so long, ridiculous number of days in court, and he admitted to only appealing because he couldn't pay and said the Heritage should pay and basically he wouldn't appeal.

How can a defamation case on such a straight forward set of facts need that long in the High Court?

Defamation cases are a joke in this country and UK. A kid that will never walk talk or function outside of being a vegetable gets awarded less than some snipey comments in a paper

First Up · 10-10-2014 4:38pm

John Divney wrote: »

In comparison to Joe Soap defending a civil case to the Supreme Court I'm saying, they are probably not going to pay near as much due to their connections.

Not that the case should have gone on for so long, ridiculous number of days in court, and he admitted to only appealing because he couldn't pay and said the Heritage should pay and basically he wouldn't appeal.

How can a defamation case on such a straight forward set of facts need that long in the High Court?

Defamation cases are a joke in this country and UK. A kid that will never walk talk or function outside of being a vegetable gets awarded less than some snipey comments in a paper

I have it on good authority that they have paid out a lot.

John Divney · 10-10-2014 4:59pm

First Up wrote: »

I have it on good authority that they have paid out a lot.

Under or over 500k do you know?

First Up · 10-10-2014 5:15pm

John Divney wrote: »

Under or over 500k do you know?

Want told a figure but I know it was enough to hurt.

John Divney · 10-10-2014 5:25pm

First Up wrote: »

Want told a figure but I know it was enough to hurt.

Do they have general liability insurance that covers it?

Another thing here that is infuriating is it said right at the end of judgement an unnasociated corporation cannot be sued for libel.

Why wasn't the case dismissed immediately, the guy could have defamed him with a full ad in the Indo and the club wouldn't be liable.

Why did the the courts allow him to abuse the process further when he had no means to cover the costs.

And lastly can the GUI get a waiver for defamation for all members against them so this never happens again?

First Up · 10-10-2014 5:32pm

John Divney wrote: »

Do they have general liability insurance that covers it?

Another thing here that is infuriating is it said right at the end of judgement an unnasociated corporation cannot be sued for libel.

Why wasn't the case dismissed immediately, the guy could have defamed him with a full ad in the Indo and the club wouldn't be liable.

Why did the the courts allow him to abuse the process further when he had no means to cover the costs.

And lastly can the GUI get a waiver for defamation for all members against them so this never happens again?

If it hurt as I was told it did, I would assume that they didn't have cover.
Can't answer any of your other questions but it does seen greviously wrong that someone can cause such damage with such a spurious and wafer thin case.

cairny · 10-10-2014 5:45pm

John Divney wrote: »

Do they have general liability insurance that covers it?

Another thing here that is infuriating is it said right at the end of judgement an unnasociated corporation cannot be sued for libel.

Why wasn't the case dismissed immediately, the guy could have defamed him with a full ad in the Indo and the club wouldn't be liable.

Why did the the courts allow him to abuse the process further when he had no means to cover the costs.

And lastly can the GUI get a waiver for defamation for all members against them so this never happens again?

General insurance won't cover defamation, in general it covers accidental injury or damage only (some defamation can be covered in shop policies but very limited and only for accidental incorrect allegations of shoplifting)

Case wasn't dismissed on this basis as he sued the comp sec and others individually as well, I presume the club and or GUI were going to indemnify the individuals, if they didn't then clubs would have trouble filling these positions.

It's not an abuse of process though, any citizen is entitled to take a case and entitled to appeal the result of a decision up to Supreme Court level. The defence probably did try to get it dismissed as frivolous earlier but failed, pretty hard to do for obvious reasons.

The GUI cannot get such a waiver, all citizens have a constitutional right to a good name and the right to protect it.

Case has done a lot of damage, huge financials costs in defending it and unquantifiable damage in scaring the bejaysus out of comp secs thinking off cutting the local troublemaker.

John Divney · 10-10-2014 5:56pm

cairny wrote: »

General insurance won't cover defamation, in general it covers accidental injury or damage only (some defamation can be covered in shop policies but very limited and only for accidental incorrect allegations of shoplifting)

Case wasn't dismissed on this basis as he sued the comp sec and others individually as well, I presume the club and or GUI were going to indemnify the individuals, if they didn't then clubs would have trouble filling these positions.

It's not an abuse of process though, any citizen is entitled to take a case and entitled to appeal the result of a decision up to Supreme Court level. The defence probably did try to get it dismissed as frivolous earlier but failed, pretty hard to do for obvious reasons.

The GUI cannot get such a waiver, all citizens have a constitutional right to a good name and the right to protect it.

Case has done a lot of damage, huge financials costs in defending it and unquantifiable damage in scaring the bejaysus out of comp secs thinking off cutting the local troublemaker.

Cheers, so the case was never really about the Heritage, and had to be heard against the individual and the GUI.

The appeal has to be a point of law or just a general right as it was a Constitutional and Tort case?

Is there an amateur sports insurance that does cover defamation by members of associations?

Could the defendants get security for costs to discourage the whole thing when he couldn't afford to lose so kept going?

Supreme Court Judgment

Comments