Legal Rights of Bouncers, or Discrimination?

kingfeek

Hi all,

I think I've been unfairly treated by the security staff at my local nightclub, and need some feedback on whether or not I was treated in a legal manner by the bouncers at this particular nightclub.

Myself and three friends all got in to the nightclub with no hassle as we've all been 18 for some time, almost 19 at this stage. We passed a man whom I know to be the manager of the place on our way to the bar. "Are ye all 18 lads?" Yeah. "Ye don't look it." He then asked for all our IDs, and we complied without saying anything at all. "Right hang on there a second." He went to the door and around 30 seconds later the same bouncer who had let us into the club said "We've just been informed that one of ye doesn't look 18, come with us please."

Now at this stage we all thought that our IDs were just going to be double checked and we walked to the door with him, but all four of us were actually removed from the premises. We protested for a minute or so, saying that all of our IDs are legitimate but they refused to even look at them (I had three IDs on me).

None of us were drunk or violent in any way, and we actually felt so strongly about this that we went to the garda station down the road and explained what happened. They said that there's nothing they can really do about it as the bouncers have the right to refuse us, but that there's "certain channels" we can go down if we feel we've been discriminated against.

We went back to the nightclub half an hour later to try again, but this time the bouncers were very aggressive and threatening towards us. I again showed a bouncer all three of my IDs and he slapped them out of my hands saying "don't wave those in my face". We protested quite a bit this time but got nowhere. We talked to a garda who was in a van beside the nightclub, and he said he'd have a word with them but he just drove off and never came back.

Now you might say that this is a very petty post and to just get on with it, but this is the only nightclub within half an hour of me and I've gotten in countless times before with no problems. The security staff there are becoming notorious around the town, as they beat up a young lad quite badly for asking the DJ for a shoutout a few weeks ago.

Firstly, do they have the right to refuse someone because they "don't look" 18, despite having three legitimate IDs? Or is this discrimination based on appearance?

Secondly, they mentioned that only ONE of us didn't look 18, yet all four of us were thrown out. Are they allowed to do that, or should the ONE person have been thrown out?

Thirdly, are they allowed to refuse everyone without even giving them a chance, or do they HAVE to have some sort of reason for not letting you in?

Fourthly, would you say that the bouncer who slapped my IDs out of my hands was out of order?

Before you say "You must have been drunk or acting violently" I wasn't, nor were any of my friends. There's CCTV cameras outside and inside the club, and I'd show them to you in a heartbeat if I could.

L1011

kingfeek wrote: »

Thirdly, are they allowed to refuse everyone without even giving them a chance, or do they HAVE to have some sort of reason for not letting you in?

Bars/clubs have no requirements to let anyone in at all, discrimination provisions non withstanding. Giving no reason at all pretty much gets around this.

kingfeek

L1011 wrote: »

Bars/clubs have no requirements to let anyone in at all, discrimination provisions non withstanding. Giving no reason at all pretty much gets around this.

The thing is that they did give a reason for throwing us out, but not for refusing us a second time. If it's logical to assume that their reasoning for not letting us in the second time was the same reason for throwing us out, would that reason be considered discrimination?

johnnyskeleton

kingfeek wrote: »

The thing is that they did give a reason for throwing us out, but not for refusing us a second time. If it's logical to assume that their reasoning for not letting us in the second time was the same reason for throwing us out, would that reason be considered discrimination?

What grounds of discrimination? Are you members of an ethnic minority or something?

kingfeek

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What grounds of discrimination? Are you members of an ethnic minority or something?

Not "looking" a certain age, despite official ID to the contrary. If this was a 60 year old who was thrown out for looking too old to be there, would people not be calling that discrimination based on appearance/age?

Atlantic Dawn

They are allowed set a lower age limit, eg nobody allowed in under 25, that's perfectly legal.

stimpson

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What grounds of discrimination? Are you members of an ethnic minority or something?

A long shot here, but perhaps he was discriminated based on his age.

Gatling

He's better off finding a new place where he can get in ,
Going back wasn't the brightest of ideas

kingfeek

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

They are allowed set a lower age limit, eg nobody allowed in under 25, that's perfectly legal.

I know they're allowed an age limit, but we were all above that age limit and had ID to prove it. One person not "looking" the limit is a bit of a dodgy reason to throw four people out.

Graham

Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003:

(4) If—

(a) the holder of a licence or other authorisation which permits the sale of intoxicating liquor adopts a policy of refusing to supply intoxicating liquor to any person below a specified age which exceeds 18 years,

(b) a notice setting out the policy is displayed in a conspicuous place in or on the exterior of the premises, and

(c) the policy is implemented in good faith,

a refusal to serve intoxicating liquor to such a person shall not constitute discrimination on the age ground.

Frynge

They don't exactly sound like the actions of four sober lads.

kingfeek

Gatling wrote: »

He's better off finding a new place where he can get in ,
Going back wasn't the brightest of ideas

When it's the only nightclub in town, waiting for the dust to settle and going back is really the only thing you can do. We went to pubs that required ID later but the experience is different in those.

And yeah you are right, I'm better off just not going back there again.

stimpson

.

kingfeek

Frynge wrote: »

They don't exactly sound like the actions of four sober lads.

How so? We all remained relatively calm until the IDs were slapped onto the ground, I'll admit I threw a few insults while walking away from that but up until that point there was nothing said/done to warrant the treatment we had gotten.

kingfeek

Graham wrote: »

Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003:

Hmm thank you, that is interesting. If I write a letter of complaint I might quote that act.

Not that a letter will get me anywhere, but what else can one do.

Graham

kingfeek wrote: »

but what else can one do.

You'll be ticked off about if for a day or two at which point you'll get over it and either get back into the venue or find somewhere else to drink. Exactly the same as the 7,548 posters before you that posed exactly the same question.

*estimated number of previous posts

kingfeek

Graham wrote: »

You'll be ticked off about if for a day or two at which point you'll get over it and either get back into the venue or find somewhere else to drink. Exactly the same as the 7,548 posters before you that posed exactly the same question.

*estimated number of previous posts

I know what I'm doing is fairly futile, and I will get over it and find another place to drink, but it's therapeutic to at least try and get some answers over it. I've never been refused in the dozens of other times I've been there. I suppose abuse of power is something that really pisses me off. Call what I'm doing petty but the "get over it" attitude is why nothing is ever done about incidents like this.

BrianBoru00

You went to the Gardai because you were thrown out of a nightclub.

Thats the kind of self entitled attitude that grinds my gears - We have a crime epidemic in the country and yet here we're getting first hand evidence of the ****e the gardai have to put up with.

kingfeek

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

You went to the Gardai because you were thrown out of a nightclub.

Thats the kind of self entitled attitude that grinds my gears - We have a crime epidemic in the country and yet here we're getting first hand evidence of the ****e the gardai have to put up with.

I went because I was possibly thrown out illegally. I also took up about one minute of a single garda's time. And if you want to say they have better things to be doing (which yes, they do), then why did they have a garda van stationed outside the nightclub if not to be dealing with incidents like mine?

I guess everyone who goes to the Gardaí about a minor incident is self entitled, huh?

Graham

kingfeek wrote: »

but the "get over it" attitude is why nothing is ever done about incidents like this.

Excellent, I look forward to your next thread when you've solved the big issue that hundreds of young folk face every week. All you need to do is join a party, secure a nomination, win an election, convince your fellow members to enact new legislation. You should have the whole thing sorted in time for your 18year old children to enjoy a pint.

toptom

Maybe we're not getting the fullstory, Bouncers won't throw folk out unless ye are known for acting the maggot.

kingfeek

Graham wrote: »

Excellent, I look forward to your next thread when you've solved the big issue that hundreds of young folk face every week. All you need to do is join a party, secure a nomination, win an election, convince your fellow members to enact new legislation. You should have the whole thing sorted in time for your 18year old children to enjoy a pint.

New legislation? The legislation is already in place, the nightclub just didn't adhere to it. That's the whole point of my post.

I know your point is that my complaints are futile, but I do realise that.

kingfeek

toptom wrote: »

Maybe we're not getting the fullstory, Bouncers won't throw folk out unless ye are known for acting the maggot.

You got the full story start to finish. I would happily post CCTV footage of our behaviour if I could. I would admit if I was in the wrong, and wouldn't have gone to the gardaí right across the road if I was acting the maggot. We got into 2 pubs after that and had a good night in the end, with no trouble whatsoever in those places.

Also have you dealt with bouncers lately? They can be overzealous at times, to say the least.

CramCycle

The bouncers done nothing illegal, a bit annoying and childish but not illegal.

Why in gods name you would go back is beyond me though if all happened as you describe.

Go somewhere else, bad mouth the place to your mates but have some reapect for yourself and dont go back.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

You are not given an automatic right to be granted entry to all nightclubs upon turning 18.
Why would you even be bothered spending money there when that's how they treated you? I get its a small town, I live in a similar town, with one club, and it's the only place to go after the pubs shut but ya kno what? Big swing of a cows tit, if they threw me out it'd be the first and last opportunity they'd get.

Triangla

OP, you got turfed out of night club unfairly as one of you looked too young.

Welcome to the world of night clubs. Fairness is a concept in your mind, not a rule obeyed by night club bouncers. Accept that.

Remember, especially when in a small town with one night club you might get refused for looking too young one week. The longer you protest the longer your face is being remembered by the bouncer. Bouncers, once they take a dislike to you will never let you past them.

Take the refusal, be polite and give no reason for them to stop you the week after. Ask anyone here, reasons for being stopped going into pubs/night clubs are just ridiculous but unfortunately that's the way it always is and always will be.

SillyLawyer

I wouldn't bother writing a letter to the establishment. All you'll do is tip them off as to how to solidify their grounds for refusing to admit you and your friends, i.e. post conspicuously on the exterior a policy of not admitting anyone under X years of age. Then you're pretty well f***ed for the next however many years until you turn X.

Keep cool, lay low, make use of the next closest pubs, and in a couple weeks you'll probably get back in with no problem. If not, well...time to pick up a hobby that doesn't involve being in that pub.

kingfeek

CramCycle wrote: »

The bouncers done nothing illegal, a bit annoying and childish but not illegal.

Why in gods name you would go back is beyond me though if all happened as you describe.

Go somewhere else, bad mouth the place to your mates but have some reapect for yourself and dont go back.

Yeah I have no intention of going back there. Looking back on it now, yes, going back wasn't the greatest idea but I did feel like I was wronged at the time. And when you've gotten a lift to a nightclub that's 20 minutes away, and it's the only one in town, it just seemed like a waste to me to give up straight away after going the distance to get there. I do realise now that it wasn't the best idea, but it was the mindset I was in at the time.

kingfeek

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You are not given an automatic right to be granted entry to all nightclubs upon turning 18.
Why would you even be bothered spending money there when that's how they treated you? I get its a small town, I live in a similar town, with one club, and it's the only place to go after the pubs shut but ya kno what? Big swing of a cows tit, if they threw me out it'd be the first and last opportunity they'd get.

Yup it's the first time I've been thrown out of anywhere, and they won't get another opportunity. I know that I don't have a right to get in there because of my age, I just felt that the reason we were thrown out was fairly petty and unjustified.

kingfeek

SillyLawyer wrote: »

I wouldn't bother writing a letter to the establishment. All you'll do is tip them off as to how to solidify their grounds for refusing to admit you and your friends, i.e. post conspicuously on the exterior a policy of not admitting anyone under X years of age. Then you're pretty well f***ed for the next however many years until you turn X.

Keep cool, lay low, make use of the next closest pubs, and in a couple weeks you'll probably get back in with no problem. If not, well...time to pick up a hobby that doesn't involve being in that pub.

I went to that place pretty much exclusively for months (besides the bouncers, they actually have a decent set up) so I suppose it's at least a good opportunity to try out other places. I won't be giving them any more business in the future.

BrianBoru00

kingfeek wrote: »

I went because I was possibly thrown out illegally. I also took up about one minute of a single garda's time. And if you want to say they have better things to be doing (which yes, they do), then why did they have a garda van stationed outside the nightclub if not to be dealing with incidents like mine?

I guess everyone who goes to the Gardaí about a minor incident is self entitled, huh?

A minor incident would be a stolen phone or a tip in the car - this shows your so far up your own arse you can't see how obnoxious it is. One minute of one gardas time is too much.
The van is there in case of serious incidents not to be dealing with people whos parents indulged them to the point where they think the world owes them its undivided attention

endacl

kingfeek wrote: »

I know what I'm doing is fairly futile, and I will get over it and find another place to drink, but it's therapeutic to at least try and get some answers over it. I've never been refused in the dozens of other times I've been there. I suppose abuse of power is something that really pisses me off. Call what I'm doing petty but the "get over it" attitude is why nothing is ever done about incidents like this.

Tbh, nothing is ever done about incidents like this because, by and large, incidents like this don't matter. We've all been refused at some point at your age. We all got pi55ed off over the 'injustice' of it all, but the world didn't stop turning and life went on.

kingfeek

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

A minor incident would be a stolen phone or a tip in the car - this shows your so far up your own arse you can't see how obnoxious it is. One minute of one gardas time is too much.
The van is there in case of serious incidents not to be dealing with people whos parents indulged them to the point where they think the world owes them its undivided attention

I guess it's just too much to ask of that poor oul' garda who's waiting in his van for a "serious" incident to happen to try and solve a dispute. I love the generalisations you're coming out with here. You know nothing about me or my parents, and if you actually read the rest of the posts on this thread, you'd see that I'm not the only one here who thinks the bouncers were a bit petty.

You're the obnoxious one here throwing insults at me like that. You weren't there when this incident occured. I asked whether or not the bouncer was legally justified in what he did. If you don't want to answer that question, move on and stop inflating your ego by spouting ****e.

endacl

^^

Y'see OP? You do tend to overreact to perceived slights at your age...

:pac:

kingfeek

endacl wrote: »

^^

Y'see OP? You do tend to overreact to perceived slights at your age...

:pac:

Overreact? Not really, I was responding to an unprovoked insult.

endacl

kingfeek wrote: »

Overreact? Not really, I was responding to an unprovoked insult.

CIARAN_BOYLE

kingfeek wrote: »

I guess it's just too much to ask of that poor oul' garda who's waiting in his van for a "serious" incident to happen to try and solve a dispute. I love the generalisations you're coming out with here. You know nothing about me or my parents, and if you actually read the rest of the posts on this thread, you'd see that I'm not the only one here who thinks the bouncers were a bit petty.

You're the obnoxious one here throwing insults at me like that. You weren't there when this incident occured. I asked whether or not the bouncer was legally justified in what he did. If you don't want to answer that question, move on and stop inflating your ego by spouting ****e.

what dispute is there?

you got thrown out a nightclub which a night club is allowed to do for any reason. You then went back to the nightclub and as refused readmission. You then proceeded to produce ID and demand admitance going to the point where the bouncer was forced to instruft to take those out of his face.

Im not seeing a dispute here.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

kingfeek wrote: »

I guess it's just too much to ask of that poor oul' garda who's waiting in his van for a "serious" incident to happen to try and solve a dispute. I love the generalisations you're coming out with here. You know nothing about me or my parents, and if you actually read the rest of the posts on this thread, you'd see that I'm not the only one here who thinks the bouncers were a bit petty.

You're the obnoxious one here throwing insults at me like that. You weren't there when this incident occured. I asked whether or not the bouncer was legally justified in what he did. If you don't want to answer that question, move on and stop inflating your ego by spouting ****e.

Oh come on, OP. Seriously? Get over it.
Tbh it's not even the bouncers at fault here. The bouncers let you in. The manager of the establishment told the bouncers to put you out. They would be foolish to go against what the manager had told them. It's THEIR RIGHT to decide who gets in, who's put out, and they don't even have to give you a reason. They can tell you to fock off if they don't like your shoes.
What's this bull**** putting "serious incidents" into ""?
Last year, my brother was jumped as he waited for a taxi, he was stabbed and he had his skull fractured. That night, that was only 1 incident for the guards to deal with. Over my years of going out at weekends, I've seen them show up in the nightclub when a fight broke out and someone got a bottle smashed in their face, I've seen them show up to vicious rows on the street/fast food restaurants, dealing with people who have actually passed out on street benches.
That's on top of them trying to deal with drink drivers, suicides, drug overdoses, and domestic disputes.

Where there are drunks, it will never be a quiet night for the guards. And you expected them twice, to go over and overrule the managements decision?? The guards do not even have that power, leaving aside it was a spoilt thing to do, it was self entitled, it does suggest you're not familiar with the word no. You won't get far with that attitude either.

Little CuChulainn

Well at least you didn't call 999. Management have the right to refuse admission. They refused you admission. There's no discrimination, just bad business. No law broken. Go somewhere else in future where your custom is wanted and stop trying to give money to someone who doesn't want your money.

bucketybuck

kingfeek wrote: »

I guess it's just too much to ask of that poor oul' garda who's waiting in his van for a "serious" incident to happen to try and solve a dispute.

Just who or what do you think the guards are? They are not your big brother and they aren't there to sort out petty shit for kids. What the hell did you think they were even going to do, go up and ask the bouncers nicely if you could get back in? They have absolutely no legal basis for doing that, you may as well have went to one of your teachers and asked them to intercede.

Bouncers and nightclubs can be absolute twats and it can be very frustrating, but you won't get much sympathy for wasting the guards time with things like this, clubs can refuse admission to anybody they like and its a fact you'll just have to accept. Your biggest mistake was going back in the first place, sounds like the bouncers had no problem with you and you probably would have gotten in fine had you left it for a few weeks before going again. But going back and having an altercation with the bouncers, now they will probably remember you and act accordingly.

kingfeek

Look lads I'm not bashing the gardai here. This was the first incident of this kind that had ever happened me, ever. I've heard of people I know being thrown out for being too drunk, getting into fights, doing drugs etc. I have never heard of four people being thrown out for one person in the group "looking" too young. I literally asked the gardai if there was anything they could do about it, to which they responded with a "not really" attitude. That's fine. That was the extent of our interaction. To people saying I wasted their time, come on. I thought I was illegally thrown out at the time, that is why I went to the garda who was literally right across the road, for a minute.

Everyone saying that they don't have to give us a reason, they DID give us a reason for throwing us out. That's the point. I created this thread to find out whether that reason was illegal. The general consesus seems to be "kind of, but it's questionable."

I can guarantee you if someone in their 30s/40s was thrown out of a bar for "looking" too old, they'd be much more up in arms over something like that than I was, and they would probably go back to the bouncers to plead their case, just like I did.

biko

There is no real legal discussion here, they can refuse admission for anyone.

Go back with the "young" lad during the day and ask to speak to a manager.
Say that you were refused entry because he looked too young. Show some other sort of ID for him.
Say something like "I hope that this clears up any confusion and is it ok to come back next weekend?"

If they agree (get manager's name) then come back fully sober next weekend and when you see the bouncers just apologise things got heated last time and "hope there's no hard feeling between us?".

If you escalate the confrontation you will lose every time with bouncers.

kingfeek

Mods, close thread please. I think it's run it's course.

BattleCorp

I've a question here.

Supposing the club were within their rights to chuck the young lads out.........what's the story with refunding them their admission money?

Would they be entitled to their money back?

Surely the club can't charge for a service that they didn't provide?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Interesting question but from what I have seen even from underage discos back in the day, they'd let you in drunk, 8 euro into it, then out the side door for being drunk.

People I've seen being kicked out of nightclubs, I personally haven't seen them being refunded.

Maybe that's the only recourse the OP has, asking for his 10r back.

Paz-CCFC

I've a couple of legal issues which may (or may not) relate to a hypothetical situation similar to the OP's.

Did you pay entry to get into the night club/pub? If so, then I disagree with the general consensus of the thread that the establishment has an absolute right to remove you. You'd have a contract with them that allows you entry for the night. Removing you without due cause would be a breach of that contract. If there were a term that they withheld the right to do so, that'd be an unfair term under the Unfair Terms Directive, imo. If you didn't pay, had you just bought a drink? You say you were on the way to the bar, but did you already have drinks in hand? If so, then a contractual licence would attach to that. Since alcohol bought from an on-licence can only be consumed on that premises, there is an implied term to the contract of buying the drink that you must be allowed to remain in the premises for a reasonable time to drink it. If you didn't pay in and hadn't yet bought a drink, then you wouldn't have any remedy here.


Just in general re security removing patrons. In supermarkets and shops, management have become very careful in relation to theft. Before, it was the done thing that security would catch hold of people they believed to be about to walk out without paying, accuse them of theft and lead them into a room in the back. That doesn't happen as much anymore. McMahon and Binchy point out how it's fraught with issues under tort law. If you lay a finger on someone, that's a battery. If you don't, but they reasonably believe that you will, that's assault. If they accuse you of theft and you didn't steal anything, that's defamation. If they lead you/detain you to the extent that you believe that you are under an obligation not to leave (or if you believe that they will harm you if you try), then that's false imprisonment.

Just applying it to the situation here. One of the issues here was that they may have believed that one of you was underage. If they said that aloud, the implication is that they're accusing you of trying to illegally enter a pub/club and purchase alcohol. Is that defamation along the lines of how McMahon and Binchy described with the shoplifting situation? They don't seem to have touched you, however did the people in the moment feel obligated to follow the orders of the manager? Did they even realise that he was taking them outside? He doesn't seem to have said it, rather just "follow me". Would it be reasonable to have believed that he was going to lead you into the back? Would that constitute false imprisonment? Did you think that if you did not follow the orders that they would have used force? If so, would that constitute a battery? Maybe. Or maybe not, it may have been reasonable under the circumstances.

On a practical issue, unlike the shop example, you were in a place where people go to drink. So, if legal action were taken, it could be reasonably claimed that you and your friends had taken a few drinks. In that case, it probably comes down to the word of a vetted and registered, on-duty security guard versus a few lads who were likely intoxicated. Whose word would likely be taken in that situation?

I think some people were unfairly dismissive of your views on this thread. It's a common one, so it seems that some posters are only too delighted to jump on the OP for being young and naive, without engaging in any actual legal critique. But, the essence of what's been said by others - that you're not going to win in an argument with bouncers after a few drinks that you should just just move on - is right. Always remember that you're the consumer, you have the power. Don't argue about your right to give them money. Why would you, if you feel that they treat you badly? We have no shortage of pubs in most places. Even if it's the only late nightclub in town, just head to a pub until half 12. You'd only be getting the extra hour or so in the other place anyway, is it really worth it if you're not happy with the way you're being treated? The sooner people stop going to pubs/clubs that don't treat the customers well (and some places do treat them badly, even if others are only dealing with unruly patrons), the sooner they will start to do so.

kingfeek

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

I've a couple of legal issues which may (or may not) relate to a hypothetical situation similar to the OP's.

Did you pay entry to get into the night club/pub? If so, then I disagree with the general consensus of the thread that the establishment has an absolute right to remove you. You'd have a contract with them that allows you entry for the night. Removing you without due cause would be a breach of that contract. If there were a term that they withheld the right to do so, that'd be an unfair term under the Unfair Terms Directive, imo. If you didn't pay, had you just bought a drink? You say you were on the way to the bar, but did you already have drinks in hand? If so, then a contractual licence would attach to that. Since alcohol bought from an on-licence can only be consumed on that premises, there is an implied term to the contract of buying the drink that you must be allowed to remain in the premises for a reasonable time to drink it. If you didn't pay in and hadn't yet bought a drink, then you wouldn't have any remedy here.


Just in general re security removing patrons. In supermarkets and shops, management have become very careful in relation to theft. Before, it was the done thing that security would catch hold of people they believed to be about to walk out without paying, accuse them of theft and lead them into a room in the back. That doesn't happen as much anymore. McMahon and Binchy point out how it's fraught with issues under tort law. If you lay a finger on someone, that's a battery. If you don't, but they reasonably believe that you will, that's assault. If they accuse you of theft and you didn't steal anything, that's defamation. If they lead you/detain you to the extent that you believe that you are under an obligation not to leave (or if you believe that they will harm you if you try), then that's false imprisonment.

Just applying it to the situation here. One of the issues here was that they may have believed that one of you was underage. If they said that aloud, the implication is that they're accusing you of trying to illegally enter a pub/club and purchase alcohol. Is that defamation along the lines of how McMahon and Binchy described with the shoplifting situation? They don't seem to have touched you, however did the people in the moment feel obligated to follow the orders of the manager? Did they even realise that he was taking them outside? He doesn't seem to have said it, rather just "follow me". Would it be reasonable to have believed that he was going to lead you into the back? Would that constitute false imprisonment? Did you think that if you did not follow the orders that they would have used force? If so, would that constitute a battery? Maybe. Or maybe not, it may have been reasonable under the circumstances.

On a practical issue, unlike the shop example, you were in a place where people go to drink. So, if legal action were taken, it could be reasonably claimed that you and your friends had taken a few drinks. In that case, it probably comes down to the word of a vetted and registered, on-duty security guard versus a few lads who were likely intoxicated. Whose word would likely be taken in that situation?

I think some people were unfairly dismissive of your views on this thread. It's a common one, so it seems that some posters are only too delighted to jump on the OP for being young and naive, without engaging in any actual legal critique. But, the essence of what's been said by others - that you're not going to win in an argument with bouncers after a few drinks that you should just just move on - is right. Always remember that you're the consumer, you have the power. Don't argue about your right to give them money. Why would you, if you feel that they treat you badly? We have no shortage of pubs in most places. Even if it's the only late nightclub in town, just head to a pub until half 12. You'd only be getting the extra hour or so in the other place anyway, is it really worth it if you're not happy with the way you're being treated? The sooner people stop going to pubs/clubs that don't treat the customers well (and some places do treat them badly, even if others are only dealing with unruly patrons), the sooner they will start to do so.

We didn't pay into the nightclub, they had a special offer where if you go before 11 o' clock, you get in for free. You mentioned that if I had paid, that you would disagree with the majority of posters here saying that the bouncers had a right to remove me. Does that mean that people who take advantage of the special offer before 11 can be thrown out as the bouncers please, but they have to be a bit more careful with those who pay? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask that, I actually am genuinely wondering because it'd be interesting if there's a difference in treatment towards those who have paid. We also hadn't bought a drink, the manager saw us less than a minute after we got in there.

Now that you say it, it could make sense that the manager could have been a little pissed that four young lads got in for free, but then again why the hell would they advertise that offer if they're just going to be gruff with people who take advantage of it?

They said aloud that one of us "didn't look 18" so all four of us were removed (they didn't specify which one of us looked young). We complied with both the manager and the bouncers because they absolutely would have used force had we refused/questioned them (believe me, I've been to the place dozens of times, they would've). We also didn't realise we were being thrown out until we got to the door, we just thought an ID double check was in order.

And yeah you are right, it's just our word against theirs at the end of the day, but they do have CCTV there and there was zero aggression on our part. If the tapes were to be viewed and it was seen that we weren't overly intoxicated or violent, would that be considered unfair removal?

I feel the same about those that jumped all over the point I was trying to make. Yeah, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter that much, but it's borderline illegal from what I can gather, and that's all I wanted to find out from this post. It's also assumed that because I'm young I think I'm self-entitled by going to the guards. If what happened was illegal, no matter how significant or insignificant the incident was, it's still illegal.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Regardless of payment or not, one foot out of line you can be turned out.

Paz-CCFC

kingfeek wrote: »

We didn't pay into the nightclub, they had a special offer where if you go before 11 o' clock, you get in for free. You mentioned that if I had paid, that you would disagree with the majority of posters here saying that the bouncers had a right to remove me. Does that mean that people who take advantage of the special offer before 11 can be thrown out as the bouncers please, but they have to be a bit more careful with those who pay? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask that, I actually am genuinely wondering because it'd be interesting if there's a difference in treatment towards those who have paid. We also hadn't bought a drink, the manager saw us less than a minute after we got in there.

For a contract to be formed, four elements are required: offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to form legal relations. Consideration is the value you give in return for the goods/service. Usually it is money, but it can be other things. In this case, you didn't pay, so the club would argue that there was no valid contract. You might be able to counter-argue that going in early was the consideration, as you wouldn't have were it not for the promotion and it enabled the club to maximise its income from your group (ie, the earlier you're in there, the more money you give them).

They said aloud that one of us "didn't look 18" so all four of us were removed (they didn't specify which one of us looked young). We complied with both the manager and the bouncers because they absolutely would have used force had we refused/questioned them (believe me, I've been to the place dozens of times, they would've). We also didn't realise we were being thrown out until we got to the door, we just thought an ID double check was in order.

They are actually allowed to use reasonable force to remove patrons, but usually places would only use it if a request to leave were first denied. It seems strange that they didn't first ask your group to leave. I'd imagine they'd claim that they did it to prevent any altercation, as some people in pubs and clubs might react badly to a request to leave. I wouldn't really agree with that myself, though, as I believe that consumers should be given the respect to be told what's happening to them, not some vague "follow me". Where it actually stands on legality, though, I don't know.

And yeah you are right, it's just our word against theirs at the end of the day, but they do have CCTV there and there was zero aggression on our part. If the tapes were to be viewed and it was seen that we weren't overly intoxicated or violent, would that be considered unfair removal?

I don't know, to be honest. It would depend on what exactly it would show, what a judge would think and if you could get hold of the tapes at all. But remember, the unjust removal only matters if there's an existing contract to be in the club and it's seen as a breach of that contract. If there's no contract, then others in the thread are right in saying that they can ask you to leave provided it's not based on one of the nine grounds of discrimination.

I feel the same about those that jumped all over the point I was trying to make. Yeah, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter that much, but it's borderline illegal from what I can gather, and that's all I wanted to find out from this post. It's also assumed that because I'm young I think I'm self-entitled by going to the guards. If what happened was illegal, no matter how significant or insignificant the incident was, it's still illegal.

Bear in mind, that what I've discussed has only been in a contract/tort context. That's civil law and so doesn't really have anything to do with the Gardaí. Whether what happened would be contrary to assault and false imprisonment under criminal law (see the Non-Fatal Offences Act 1997), I don't know. For starters, it's a lot harder to prove in criminal as opposed to civil (beyond a reasonable doubt versus on the balance of probabilities).

However, the Garda presumably advised that you not return to the premises. Such advice could have prevented another altercation, which could have gotten physical, and that would have been a Garda-matter. So, I think that it was probably worthwhile to have a chat with him, if it stopped your group from returning if nothing else. You're well entitled to have a chat with a member of the police if you feel aggrieved. All you did was ask a few questions from a guard out on the beat. I doubt you facilitated any mass murders or bank heists while his back was turned.


Remember, though, that even if the club treated you badly and if you were assaulted/falsely imprisoned under tort law, defamed, had a contract breached etc., what do you think you'll gain? What are the damages? You didn't pay in, so even if there were a breach of contract, there's no financial loss. You'd likely only get nominal damages, if anything, from an assault, false imprisonment etc. Defamation cases are expensive and you'd probably give more publicity to any claim by pursuing it. Being accused of drinking underage isn't really one of the things that you'd want to go to the hassle of a court case over. What I've been saying has all been theoretical discussion in the context of a legal debate, as the website doesn't allow any actual legal advice. Your theoretical rights and how you enforce them in practice are two very different things.

If it were me, at the very most I'd send a polite letter of complaint to the club and maybe send a complaint to the Consumer Authority that the place is giving disingenuous promotions that it's not fulfilling. At the very most.

kingfeek

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

For a contract to be formed, four elements are required: offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to form legal relations. Consideration is the value you give in return for the goods/service. Usually it is money, but it can be other things. In this case, you didn't pay, so the club would argue that there was no valid contract. You might be able to counter-argue that going in early was the consideration, as you wouldn't have were it not for the promotion and it enabled the club to maximise its income from your group (ie, the earlier you're in there, the more money you give them).


They are actually allowed to use reasonable force to remove patrons, but usually places would only use it if a request to leave were first denied. It seems strange that they didn't first ask your group to leave. I'd imagine they'd claim that they did it to prevent any altercation, as some people in pubs and clubs might react badly to a request to leave. I wouldn't really agree with that myself, though, as I believe that consumers should be given the respect to be told what's happening to them, not some vague "follow me". Where it actually stands on legality, though, I don't know.

I don't know, to be honest. It would depend on what exactly it would show, what a judge would think and if you could get hold of the tapes at all. But remember, the unjust removal only matters if there's an existing contract to be in the club and it's seen as a breach of that contract. If there's no contract, then others in the thread are right in saying that they can ask you to leave provided it's not based on one of the nine grounds of discrimination.

Bear in mind, that what I've discussed has only been in a contract/tort context. That's civil law and so doesn't really have anything to do with the Gardaí. Whether what happened would be contrary to assault and false imprisonment under criminal law (see the Non-Fatal Offences Act 1997), I don't know. For starters, it's a lot harder to prove in criminal as opposed to civil (beyond a reasonable doubt versus on the balance of probabilities).

However, the Garda presumably advised that you not return to the premises. Such advice could have prevented another altercation, which could have gotten physical, and that would have been a Garda-matter. So, I think that it was probably worthwhile to have a chat with him, if it stopped your group from returning if nothing else. You're well entitled to have a chat with a member of the police if you feel aggrieved. All you did was ask a few questions from a guard out on the beat. I doubt you facilitated any mass murders or bank heists while his back was turned.


Remember, though, that even if the club treated you badly and if you were assaulted/falsely imprisoned under tort law, defamed, had a contract breached etc., what do you think you'll gain? What are the damages? You didn't pay in, so even if there were a breach of contract, there's no financial loss. You'd likely only get nominal damages, if anything, from an assault, false imprisonment etc. Defamation cases are expensive and you'd probably give more publicity to any claim by pursuing it. Being accused of drinking underage isn't really one of the things that you'd want to go to the hassle of a court case over. What I've been saying has all been theoretical discussion in the context of a legal debate, as the website doesn't allow any actual legal advice. Your theoretical rights and how you enforce them in practice are two very different things.

If it were me, at the very most I'd send a polite letter of complaint to the club and maybe send a complaint to the Consumer Authority that the place is giving disingenuous promotions that it's not fulfilling. At the very most.

Thank you for all your information. I don't have any intention of pursuing legal action, that'd just be foolish on my part, but it's more just for personal information and knowledge. As you said, this is all theoretical. Again, I am young, I don't know the ins and outs of civil and criminal law. I didn't know that something like this likely wouldn't have anything to do with the gardai. I doubt some of the people on this thread knew that either...

It was indeed a very vague "follow me". It's just the way the whole situation was handled was a bit odd, whether or not any law was broken.

However, the Garda presumably advised that you not return to the premises. Such advice could have prevented another altercation, which could have gotten physical, and that would have been a Garda-matter. So, I think that it was probably worthwhile to have a chat with him, if it stopped your group from returning if nothing else. You're well entitled to have a chat with a member of the police if you feel aggrieved. All you did was ask a few questions from a guard out on the beat. I doubt you facilitated any mass murders or bank heists while his back was turned.

This is the point I was trying to make about my actions earlier. A harmless few questions for a minute or two. I hardly stopped any drug raids by telling him what happened, yet here I am being accused of having wasted garda time because of one, short, peaceful exchange. Being told I'm up my own arse is a bit much

You've given me some food for thought, thank you.

Little CuChulainn

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

I've a couple of legal issues which may (or may not) relate to a hypothetical situation similar to the OP's.

Did you pay entry to get into the night club/pub? If so, then I disagree with the general consensus of the thread that the establishment has an absolute right to remove you. You'd have a contract with them that allows you entry for the night. Removing you without due cause would be a breach of that contract. If there were a term that they withheld the right to do so, that'd be an unfair term under the Unfair Terms Directive, imo. If you didn't pay, had you just bought a drink? You say you were on the way to the bar, but did you already have drinks in hand? If so, then a contractual licence would attach to that. Since alcohol bought from an on-licence can only be consumed on that premises, there is an implied term to the contract of buying the drink that you must be allowed to remain in the premises for a reasonable time to drink it. If you didn't pay in and hadn't yet bought a drink, then you wouldn't have any remedy here.


Just in general re security removing patrons. In supermarkets and shops, management have become very careful in relation to theft. Before, it was the done thing that security would catch hold of people they believed to be about to walk out without paying, accuse them of theft and lead them into a room in the back. That doesn't happen as much anymore. McMahon and Binchy point out how it's fraught with issues under tort law. If you lay a finger on someone, that's a battery. If you don't, but they reasonably believe that you will, that's assault. If they accuse you of theft and you didn't steal anything, that's defamation. If they lead you/detain you to the extent that you believe that you are under an obligation not to leave (or if you believe that they will harm you if you try), then that's false imprisonment.

Just applying it to the situation here. One of the issues here was that they may have believed that one of you was underage. If they said that aloud, the implication is that they're accusing you of trying to illegally enter a pub/club and purchase alcohol. Is that defamation along the lines of how McMahon and Binchy described with the shoplifting situation? They don't seem to have touched you, however did the people in the moment feel obligated to follow the orders of the manager? Did they even realise that he was taking them outside? He doesn't seem to have said it, rather just "follow me". Would it be reasonable to have believed that he was going to lead you into the back? Would that constitute false imprisonment? Did you think that if you did not follow the orders that they would have used force? If so, would that constitute a battery? Maybe. Or maybe not, it may have been reasonable under the circumstances.

On a practical issue, unlike the shop example, you were in a place where people go to drink. So, if legal action were taken, it could be reasonably claimed that you and your friends had taken a few drinks. In that case, it probably comes down to the word of a vetted and registered, on-duty security guard versus a few lads who were likely intoxicated. Whose word would likely be taken in that situation?

I think some people were unfairly dismissive of your views on this thread. It's a common one, so it seems that some posters are only too delighted to jump on the OP for being young and naive, without engaging in any actual legal critique. But, the essence of what's been said by others - that you're not going to win in an argument with bouncers after a few drinks that you should just just move on - is right. Always remember that you're the consumer, you have the power. Don't argue about your right to give them money. Why would you, if you feel that they treat you badly? We have no shortage of pubs in most places. Even if it's the only late nightclub in town, just head to a pub until half 12. You'd only be getting the extra hour or so in the other place anyway, is it really worth it if you're not happy with the way you're being treated? The sooner people stop going to pubs/clubs that don't treat the customers well (and some places do treat them badly, even if others are only dealing with unruly patrons), the sooner they will start to do so.

There's a big difference between shops and licenced premises. Licenced premises have a legal obligation to prevent underage and intoxicated persons being on their premises.