Harney Gets €450K Libel Payout

Plazaman

So Mary Harney, who initially wanted a cool mill from Newstalk radio, won €450,000 in a settlement against the Tom Dunne show on Newstalk after Nell Mc Cafferty made comments of a very personal nature (called her an alco).

Story HERE

I'm just heading over to the Legal Discussion thread to see if a website can be done for libel. If not, I'll be back with some choice words and super personal jibes against the cow.

Claasman

whats the problem? She was defamed on national radio regarding her personal life. if it was anyone else, the exact same thing would have happened.

Hasmunch

McDonald's all round

DoesNotCompute

Claasman wrote: »

whats the problem? She was defamed on national radio regarding her personal life. if it was anyone else, the exact same thing would have happened.

"Anyone else" wouldn't have been awarded that much money though.

Biggins

The Journal.ie reported same yesterday, they were taking reporting from the words from the editor of the The Phoenix too.

Pure madness the amount she got.

I'm currently fighting a serious medical case (toxin in sofa nealy killed her and kept her in bandages head to toe for six months - made national and English headlines) on behalf of my daughter (who also has Scolioses), which has been (and still is) dragging on for years ...and we will be luck to get for her year of pain even €20k!

Yet this cow can get half a million because she was insulted over the fact that she was supposedly drinking under her own effort - in a far, far shorted period of time court-wise!

Thats the state of the Irish law at times. All fcuked up!
One law for 'them' and one more backward one for the rest of us!

Claasman

Hasmunch wrote: »

McDonald's all round

relevant username...

Plazaman

Claasman wrote: »

whats the problem? She was defamed on national radio regarding her personal life. if it was anyone else, the exact same thing would have happened.

Well firstly the show apologised 4 times during the broadcast as did Nell Mc Cafferty. Following that "one of the most effusive apologies in recorded publishing libel history were uttered" by Newstalk. Job done, everyone admitted wrongness and apologised - get over it Harney.

Not forgetting the fact that she previously settled libel cases against Magill Magazine for €25,000 and Sunday Independant for €70,000. If she approached her Ministery at the time with the same vigor as her suing culture maybe the Health system would be slightly better.

geeky

Biggins wrote: »

The Journal.ie reported same yesterday, they were taking reporting from the words from the editor of the The Phoenix too.

Pure madness the amount she got.

I'm currently fighting a serious medical case (toxin in sofa nealy killed her and kept her in bandages head to toe for six months - made national and English headlines) on behalf of my daughter (who also has Scolioses), which has been (and still is) dragging on for years ...and we will be luck to get for her year of pain even €20k!

Yet this cow can get half a million because she was insulted over the fact that she was supposedly drinking under her own effort - in a far, far shorted period of time court-wise!

Thats the state of the Irish law at times. All fcuked up!
One law for 'them' and one more backward one for the rest of us!

It's a total joke your situation - hope it works out. However, in this case, I don't think the award was off the wall. Harney can legitimately argue that McCafferty's libel prevented her getting very lucrative work/directorships after quitting politics (I think it's more to do with the cock-up she made of the health service, but can't prove that in court).

Also, a judge could well have thrown the book at newstalk for their irresponsibility in putting such an erratic person on the air without a time delay. The fact that Nell has a personal grudge against Harney makes the cock-up even more malicious. If it had gone to trial, I reckon punitive damages would have been handed out. And rightly so - the news media shouldn't be allowed to slur people without prove and not expect comeback.

Much as I loath the individual, I'm frankly delighted that a person who was maliciously libelled an alcoholic by a national broadcaster took them to the cleaners.

Mint Sauce

Well I suppose the huge unjustified severence pay, and pension, will only go so far.

:rolleyes:

Claasman

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

"Anyone else" wouldn't have been awarded that much money though.

Sorry, by anyone else, I meant anyone else of the same popularity(not the best choice of word here but ykwim).

Run_to_da_hills

She will need all the money she can get, blimps are quiet costly to maintain.

upandcumming

I think the amount rewarded is somewhat excessive but I'm delighted she got it. As geeky said, NewsTalk made a big boo-boo and let McCaffery on live radio. You can't go around calling people alcoholics.
And if people bothered to read the full article, you'd see that she donated other monies to a hospital.

Swampy

I'm jealous of her cash.

Biggins

upandcumming wrote: »

I think the amount rewarded is somewhat excessive but I'm delighted she got it. As geeky said, NewsTalk made a big boo-boo and let McCaffery on live radio. You can't go around calling people alcoholics.
And if people bothered to read the full article, you'd see that she donated other monies to a hospital.

Absolutely fair enough - but I condemn the unfairness of the legal system with greater vigor.
There is no balance when it comes to cases like this, in relation to other normal cases that are allowed drag on for years over smaller amounts and ordinary citizens who can't afford mega-powerful, connected legal teams.

spurious

She will probably give it to charity.

Oh noes! At least the rabble can still slag her cos she's fat.

bonerm

Hopefully she'll give it to charity and then kill herself.

mod: poster banned.

WindSock

One would imagine a donation to a hospital would raise her profile a little in this case.

COYW

Firstly, I am not a fan of Mary Harney at all but

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

"Anyone else" wouldn't have been awarded that much money though.

She should have been awarded more. The remarks made were completely OTT.

Biggins wrote: »

The Journal.ie reported same yesterday, they were taking reporting from the words from the editor of the The Phoenix too.

Pure madness the amount she got.

I'm currently fighting a serious medical case (toxin in sofa nealy killed her and kept her in bandages head to toe for six months - made national and English headlines) on behalf of my daughter (who also has Scolioses), which has been (and still is) dragging on for years ...and we will be luck to get for her year of pain even €20k!

Complete and utter rubbish. I don't believe this for one second. I work in the insurance sector and this would be a 6 figure claim.

Biggins

COYW wrote: »

Complete and utter rubbish. I don't believe this for one second. I work in the insurance sector and this would be a 6 figure claim.

Really?
A recent previous case: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292847116.html

A SIX-YEAR-OLD girl, Holly David, has been awarded €10,000 damages against Argos Ltd after she developed “intensely tingly” rashes from a new sofa when she was aged two.

Barrister Andrew Whelan told the Circuit Civil Court yesterday a widespread recall of chemically-contaminated sofas was carried out by Argos in November 2009.

Come back when you really have a fcuking clue as to facts of the matter I stated!
Are you calling me a liar and making out that I am stupid? Get stuffed!
Some of us ACTUALLY DO know what we are talking about!
Its your post that is "Complete and utter rubbish".

phasers

When I was younger I was awarded damages when I had my back sliced up by a faulty escalator and I got 12k. I never really hear of any compo cases that go over €100,000.

Apparently hurt feelings are worth more than physical injuries.

biko

bonerm wrote: »

Hopefully she'll give it to charity and then kill herself.

That's too much. Banned.

folan

phasers wrote: »

Apparently hurt feelings are worth more than physical injuries.

depends on whose feelings are hurt too

Lanaier

While I don't think she deserves (or even remotely needs) the cash it's nice to know that the media can't get away with everything.

almostnever

phasers wrote: »

When I was younger I was awarded damages when I had my back sliced up by a faulty escalator and I got 12k. I never really hear of any compo cases that go over €100,000.

Apparently hurt feelings are worth more than physical injuries.

The problem is that the damages for defamation are determined by a jury and the damages for personal injuries aren't. Juries tend to be considerably more generous when awarding damages, and the discrepancy between damages for personal injury and defamation is a recurring theme in the law of tort.

melekalikimaka

Biggins wrote: »

Really?
A recent previous case: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292847116.html



Come back when you really have a fcuking clue as to facts of the matter I stated!
Are you calling me a liar and making out that I am stupid? Get stuffed!
Some of us ACTUALLY DO know what we are talking about!
Its your post that is "Complete and utter rubbish".

your earlier statement seemed to me at least to make the case out more severe, not that it isnt serious, which it is.

WindSock

What kind of jury in this country would deem that an acceptable amount?

folan

WindSock wrote: »

What kind of jury in this country would deem that an acceptable amount?

ex-FF ministers?

eco2live

Look at what the state gave abuse victims. Is that not worse then being called a alcoholic in jest. Crazy amount.

She will only end up spending it on drink.

wild_cat

spurious wrote: »

Oh noes! At least the rabble can still slag her cos she's fat.

I was just about to enquire if we could say that? Seeing as its a bit hard for her to deny and all.

eco2live

almostnever wrote: »

The problem is that the damages for defamation are determined by a jury and the damages for personal injuries aren't. Juries tend to be considerably more generous when awarding damages, and the discrepancy between damages for personal injury and defamation is a recurring theme in the law of tort.

Is a tort a posh tart?

wild_cat

eco2live wrote: »

Is a tort a posh tart?

I'm heading to avoca later i'll enquire for you.

Predalien

almostnever wrote: »

The problem is that the damages for defamation are determined by a jury and the damages for personal injuries aren't. Juries tend to be considerably more generous when awarding damages, and the discrepancy between damages for personal injury and defamation is a recurring theme in the law of tort.

And they tend to award rich people considerably more for defamation, seems a wealthy person's reputation is more important than normal folk.

Another poster has said it would have prevented her from taking up directorships and such, I think the incredible mess she made of the health service would be a far bigger reason for her being less employable.

neil_hosey

pay her in cheese and see how she bleedin likes it!

Biggins

melekalikimaka wrote: »

your earlier statement seemed to me at least to make the case out more severe, not that it isnt serious, which it is.

It is more worse - but we have been advised as to amounts our daughter might win going on previous cases which some judges and Personal Injuries Boards look to for levels of previous awards.

As a previous poster rightly alluded to :

The problem is that the damages for defamation are determined by a jury and the damages for personal injuries aren't. Juries tend to be considerably more generous when awarding damages, and the discrepancy between damages for personal injury and defamation is a recurring theme in the law of tort.

100% correct.
You get my daughter in front of a jury, show them the year of hell she went through in photographic terms alone...

...a simple example of our child: http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6789/skin2s.jpg or http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6301/legsn.jpg (taken during recovery - WARNING: GRAPHIC)

...then she might get HUGE amounts via an emotional caring human jury.
However she is up before a Personal Injuries Board which consists of office block professionals sitting around a table somewhere deciding on the latest numbered case.

Now Harney can (rightly) come alone with her case and go in front of a peoples jury and win larger amounts - and this is also because - regardless of the preciseness of the actual law in words - juries decisions oft times are based on emotions and personal experiences (or thru friends similar experiences) and subsequently payouts can be huge.

Its the juries themselves that companies, newspapers etc fear. Juries decisions can go massively either way!
If Harneys case landed before a more cold professional office team for a decision, she might have got much less.

melekalikimaka

Predalien wrote: »

And they tend to award rich people considerably more for defamation, seems a wealthy person's reputation is more important than normal folk. .

in the eyes of a court...sadly yes thats a fact of the syste when it comes to defamation, famous peoples reputation makes or breaks their career and also the number of people whom heard the comments influences it.


compared to cases in print media, newstalk got off lightly

ilovesleep

spurious wrote: »

She will probably give it to charity.

Oh noes! At least the rabble can still slag her cos she's fat.

She'll spend it supermacs more like

Het-Field

Biggins wrote: »

It is more worse - but we have been advised to to amounts our daughter might win going on previous cases which some judges and Personal Injuries Boards look to for levels of awards.

As a previous poster rightly alluded to :

100% correct.
You get my daughter in front of a jury, show them the year of hell she went through in photographic terms alone
...(a simple example of our child: http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6789/skin2s.jpg)
...then she might get HUGE amounts via an emotional caring human jury.
However she is up before a Personal Injuries Board which consists of office block professionals sitting around a table somewhere deciding on the latest numbered case.

Now Harney can (rightly) come alone with her case and go in front of a peoples jury and win larger amounts - and this is also because - regardless of the preciseness of the actual law in words - juries decisions oft times are based on emotions and personal experiences (or thru friends similar experiences) and subsequently payouts can be huge.

Its the juries themselves that companies, newspapers etc fear. Juries decisions can go massively either way!
If Harneys case landed before a more cold professional office team for a decision, she might have got much less.

First, I wish you well in the resolution of your own troubles Biggins.

However, it must to be noted that this matter has never been before a court, or before a jury. It was a settlement, which was entered into by the two parties, for whatever reason. Thus, it is not a case of two-speed justice. It is simply the case that resolution has been reached by alternative means.

subway

i'm sure she will donate it to charity.

mirwillbeback

Biggins wrote: »

It is more worse - but we have been advised to to amounts our daughter might win going on previous cases which some judges and Personal Injuries Boards look to for levels of previous awards.

As a previous poster rightly alluded to :

100% correct.
You get my daughter in front of a jury, show them the year of hell she went through in photographic terms alone...

...a simple example of our child: http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6789/skin2s.jpg or http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6301/legsn.jpg (taken during recovery - WARNING: GRAPHIC)

...then she might get HUGE amounts via an emotional caring human jury.
However she is up before a Personal Injuries Board which consists of office block professionals sitting around a table somewhere deciding on the latest numbered case.

Now Harney can (rightly) come alone with her case and go in front of a peoples jury and win larger amounts - and this is also because - regardless of the preciseness of the actual law in words - juries decisions oft times are based on emotions and personal experiences (or thru friends similar experiences) and subsequently payouts can be huge.

Its the juries themselves that companies, newspapers etc fear. Juries decisions can go massively either way!
If Harneys case landed before a more cold professional office team for a decision, she might have got much less.

:mad:

Biggins, I can only wish you well in your quest, that is shocking to occur to a child or anyone. I also notice that your response to COYW was met with a deafening silence, so I imagine he is well and truly put in his place.

On your case, I am not sure if there is anything the Boardsies can do as it is in the legal domain, but if there were ( ie a petition or anything ) I'd be willing to organise it - might not be a goer, I am not really au fait which such cases.

Anyhow, best of luck in your case, maybe keep us / we posted.

Take care

enda1

Biggins wrote: »

...The sad and laughing (not really!) part is that its well, well known in Dublin by previous occupants in the Dail and Journalists as to the real facts of the matter!

Yes its well known that she's no an alcoholic. Its well known that you're wrong. Its well known that the case was a settlement, not a judgement as you seem to believe. Its well known that the amount of money in question is not only related to the seriousness, but also related to the earning potential of the individual and the expected damage made by the remark to the projected earnings.

Your constant slurs against her, thinly veiled as they are, are pathetic.

almostnever

WindSock wrote: »

What kind of jury in this country would deem that an acceptable amount?

It happens all the time. Sure remember this last year?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1117/kinsellad.html

It actually happened as we were studying defamation in torts, even my lecturer was speechless. But the damages for defamation are, as a rule, disproportionately high. Even before the award for €10m, our lecturer said to get the award for personal injuries that you'd get for defamation you'd have to lose your sight, hearing, the use of your limbs and have your injury in some way aggravated by the conduct of the other party. Crazy stuff really. It's one of the reasons why the new Act allows the Supreme Court on appeal to substitute an appropriate measure of damages. Although I'd say it was a missed opportunity to abolish the use of juries in defamation altogether, but that's another matter.

Biggins

Het-Field wrote: »

...it must to be noted that this matter has never been before a court, or before a jury. It was a settlement, which was entered into by the two parties, for whatever reason. Thus, it is not a case of two-speed justice. It is simply the case that resolution has been reached by alternative means.

O' indeed.
(I really don't want to side track the thread)
I will just say that if same boards can be set-up for such claims as Harneys, there might be seen not just in my daughters case but in others, equal justice (and time) in the eyes of the law might be seen.
The young girl in the Irish Times report did indeed go before a "Personal Injuries Board" - but trust me, the speed at which they operate is absolutely crazily slow (years!) and thats just to get to that point of they getting involved in any one case.
...Whereas jury courts (with the right high priced legal team) can have you sorted out in months - sadly out of the reach of the vast bulk of the population.

Its the unfairness of the law and juries for one and 'Boards' for others that create the unbalance.

cosanostra

Is this the most Denis o Brien has paid a politician now?

I think common sense should have prevailed here an apology was made no harm was done, as was said on the Vinvent Browne show last night this money could end up costing jobs at Newstalk!

Biggins

enda1 wrote: »

Yes its well known that she's no an alcoholic. Its well known that you're wrong. Its well known that the case was a settlement, not a judgement as you seem to believe. Its well known that the amount of money in question is not only related to the seriousness, but also related to the earning potential of the individual and the expected damage made by the remark to the projected earnings.

Your constant slurs against her, thinly veiled as they are, are pathetic.

I did NOT state above as to her habits or possible medical condition either way - please don't put words in my mouth.
I stated that those that have worked with her or around her, besides the Dublin journalists, know just the truths of the matter.
End of story.

You think she is not as was made out to be on the radio? Fair enough!

Biggins

mirwillbeback wrote: »

:mad:

Biggins, I can only wish you well in your quest...
...Anyhow, best of luck in your case, maybe keep us / we posted.

I am but of one of many similar cases - there is 600+ currently being taken in England alone on this matter.
(See here)
The wife and I will just continue to let the legal process sort it all out. Its all we can do for our daughter.

melekalikimaka

Biggins wrote: »

know just the truths of the matter.
End of story.

your opinion. not the truth as the court ruled othewise. i'll leant with the courts over rambling journos on this one

goose2005

Het-Field wrote: »

First, I wish you well in the resolution of your own troubles Biggins.

However, it must to be noted that this matter has never been before a court, or before a jury. It was a settlement, which was entered into by the two parties, for whatever reason. Thus, it is not a case of two-speed justice. It is simply the case that resolution has been reached by alternative means.

But the reason they settled for 450k was that they knew the court would award a similar figure.

subway wrote: »

i'm sure she will donate it to charity.

that, or kfc.

Biggins

melekalikimaka wrote: »

your opinion. not the truth as the court ruled othewise. i'll leant with the courts over rambling journos on this one

...And quite correct.

the groutch

The drinks are on her tonight then

snubbleste

Er..the case was settled out of court.
Dunno if she'd have got more in a jury situation, most people would've interaction with the Health Services, she's not the most popular woman on the planet.

Harney gets
An annual ministerial pension of about €69,200,
A TD's pension of around €50,600 per year
A pension lump sum of around €160,000
A termination lump sum of around €17,000
And a year of monthly termination payments from the Oireachtas worth another €66,900.

Contra Proferentem

Biggins wrote: »

The Journal.ie reported same yesterday, they were taking reporting from the words from the editor of the The Phoenix too.

Pure madness the amount she got.

I'm currently fighting a serious medical case (toxin in sofa nealy killed her and kept her in bandages head to toe for six months - made national and English headlines) on behalf of my daughter (who also has Scolioses), which has been (and still is) dragging on for years ...and we will be luck to get for her year of pain even €20k!

Yet this cow can get half a million because she was insulted over the fact that she was supposedly drinking under her own effort - in a far, far shorted period of time court-wise!

Thats the state of the Irish law at times. All fcuked up!
One law for 'them' and one more backward one for the rest of us!

Every case is different and needs to be considered as such. No doubt it's a woeful situation that you describe, I remember reading of those toxic sofas and was thankful that no one I knew had gotten one.

One of the differences in this case is that the station, Newstalk, settled outside of court with Harney. This means they weren't contesting the issue in court. In your case, perhaps the company responsible is contesting or delaying and sadly that's just the way the system works at times. No one has ever claimed that it was perfect.

The PIAB (Personal Injuries Assessment Board) is designed to provide a way to resolve a large amount of injury claims in a transparent and reasonably prompt way. The strain placed on the courts by the number of claims was then reduced, and the courts become the last resort. It deals with most personal injury cases except medical negligence.

This whole thing of money buying better lawyers, better justice, etc. is pointless. You cannot pin it to the legal system or profession, because in the current way society is ordered (i.e: capitalism), more money gets you a better house, better sofa, better toaster, better computer, etc., etc.

Note: Last time Harney won a defamation claim, she donated it to charity. Write to her and tell her to give it to FLAC so people without money can get better legal advice, Biggins.