Supreme Court Judgment

Miley Byrne

Got an email from the GUI about this while ago

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

stitcheddepin

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

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

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

Miley Byrne

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

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

GreeBo

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

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

godtabh

Goldenjohn wrote: »

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

Not as much as the lad who lost!

JOSman

Were costs awarded?

Goldenjohn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Divney wrote: »

Under or over 500k do you know?

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

John Divney

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

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

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

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?

blackwhite

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.

You can get Directors and Officers insurance which would be generally cover a business for being sued in circumstances where the actions of an officer resulted in them being sued.
However I have no idea if any insurer offers a similar type of policy to clubs to cover them in a similar way.

John Divney

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/simple-case-takes-83-days-of-court-time-30653373.html


Seems this 83 days for a 'simple case' has not been lost on the Chief Justice, what a waste of court time.

cairny

blackwhite wrote: »

You can get Directors and Officers insurance which would be generally cover a business for being sued in circumstances where the actions of an officer resulted in them being sued.
However I have no idea if any insurer offers a similar type of policy to clubs to cover them in a similar way.

Came across this only once and it was a US Insurer, very hard to get, loads of conditions and very expensive. Probably not viable for a sports club. Usually organisations with big turnovers, eg Credit Union etc.

cairny

John Divney wrote: »

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?

There's (more or less) an automatic right of appeal to Supreme Court from High Court decisions.

I think there is some process for getting the security you refer to but that it's very very rarely granted. When you think about it there's a good reason as it would discriminate in favour of those who with means against those without. Leads to galling outcomes alright though.

John Divney

cairny wrote: »

There's (more or less) an automatic right of appeal to Supreme Court from High Court decisions.

I think there is some process for getting the security you refer to but that it's very very rarely granted. When you think about it there's a good reason as it would discriminate in favour of those who with means against those without. Leads to galling outcomes alright though.

Yeah I was thinking it would be rare with deep pocket corporations etc, but in a scenario where say the legal costs (could argue it anyway) would shut the club down, as voluntary association, and the man was called a 'serial litagent by a High court judge, the club not even directly liable under law, there would be an application for it at least to protect the associations, particularly on such a risky claim that the man would appeal knowing he couldn't pay and never let it go.

Miley Byrne

John Divney wrote: »

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

You might want to edit that to Hermitage John

(In case of more litigation!!!):D

blackwhite

cairny wrote: »

Came across this only once and it was a US Insurer, very hard to get, loads of conditions and very expensive. Probably not viable for a sports club. Usually organisations with big turnovers, eg Credit Union etc.

It's standard insurance for any large business. Fairly common and not actually that expensive at all. In my work we have had it place for years, and its always a fairly competitive renewal

I'm not aware if there's an equivalent for that would cover non-commercial entities, but I'd imagine it'd be difficult to get cover for volunteer positions like handicap sec

Bepolite

I'm finding a way to put this into one of my law exams! :pac:

cairny

blackwhite wrote: »

It's standard insurance for any large business. Fairly common and not actually that expensive at all. In my work we have had it place for years, and its always a fairly competitive renewal

I'm not aware if there's an equivalent for that would cover non-commercial entities, but I'd imagine it'd be difficult to get cover for volunteer positions like handicap sec

Sorry I should have clarified that I was referring to voluntary or non professional organisations, ie not directors or professional indemnity insurance which as you say is very standard.

Manach

Just a pity for all parties it came to this, given the resources it took to resolve. There is an old saying, the law does not concern itself over a match's coin toss: so perhaps if the plaintiff had sought advice before moving forward with this he might have been better off to resolve it outside the legal system.

John Divney

Manach wrote: »

Just a pity for all parties it came to this, given the resources it took to resolve. There is an old saying, the law does not concern itself over a match's coin toss: so perhaps if the plaintiff had sought advice before moving forward with this he might have been better off to resolve it outside the legal system.

The plaintiff was described as a 'serial litigant' and 'irrational' in his claims in court by a High Court Judge in on of his other cases.

He wasn't after advice, he had to know he would lose and rack up the fees, and not have a hope of paying costs, so he went on to the Supreme Court in a billion to one hail Mary and rack up more fees.

The Court System was shown to be very inefficent on this one, 83 days wasted on a simple matter of law. The public and the Defendants here got screwed needlessly.

Raisins

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.

I would agree that the only winners were the lawyers for the GUI but he was a lay litigant. I'm sure that proposal would work wonders for the rights of people to access the Courts. What gallop? You think lawyers make money from spurious and vexations claims?

GreeBo wrote: »

The gui didn't though, so the point stands.

How on earth could the point that the lawyers for the GUI should pay the costs still stand?

abff

John Divney wrote: »

The plaintiff was described as a 'serial litigant' and 'irrational' in his claims in court by a High Court Judge in on of his other cases.

He wasn't after advice, he had to know he would lose and rack up the fees, and not have a hope of paying costs, so he went on to the Supreme Court in a billion to one hail Mary and rack up more fees.

The Court System was shown to be very inefficent on this one, 83 days wasted on a simple matter of law. The public and the Defendants here got screwed needlessly.

How did it take 83 days to deal with this? Mind boggling doesn't begin to describe it. I know that everyone should be entitled to due process, but there's something very wrong with the system when a matter like this can take that long to deal with in court.

abff

Some further background on the litigant. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lovers-united-after-three-decades-apart-now-fight-over-house-26456671.html

brick tamland

He must really enjoy being in the High Court

Dr_Colossus

Update in today's paper, the plaintiff had costs awarded against him, estimated to be in the region of €500k.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/pensioner-who-lost-case-about-golf-handicap-faces-legal-costs-of-500-000-1.1971762