E7500 defamation charge for what???

Specialun

Im confused by this one

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-25-who-allegedly-called-security-guard-a-thick-st-awarded-defamation-damages-34367506.html

GreatDefector

Specialun wrote: »

Im confused by this one

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-25-who-allegedly-called-security-guard-a-thick-st-awarded-defamation-damages-34367506.html

The guy who slept with her is one who deserves the €7.5 tbh...

Dravokivich

So... Security can't do what we expect security to do these days. Unless somehow they manage to do things out of sight of the persons friends and other customers.

thebaz

Specialun wrote: »

Im confused by this one

[

I'm not - its a reflection on our judiciary , who are so out of step with day to day modern life , most live a pampered life sheltered up in the law library - reading this case seams as no one was actually guilty of anything , except perhaps the soft judge

HeidiHeidi

Any chance you could post an extract, or give a summary of what this is about?

I'm reluctant to contribute more to the Indo's coffers by succumbing to their clickbait, tbh.

JackHeuston

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Any chance you could post an extract, or give a summary of what this is about?

I'm reluctant to contribute more to the Indo's coffers by succumbing to their clickbait, tbh.

Young woman and some friends of her approach a shop from which said woman's banned.

Security makes her leave. She asks why, security says "you know why".

Young woman was offended and was defamed in front of her friends and other customers.

pickarooney

This sounds exactly like a report from Irish Pictorial Weekly.

My name is URL

Whatever about whether or not she was defamed (I can't see how she was in this case), €7,500 is an absurd amount to award her for feeling embarrassed in front of a few mates.

Red King

This kind of thing only encourages the scum.

The_Valeyard

If she was previous banned from the shop because of an offence then this is absurd.

If she was unknown to security and was profiled, then she might have a case. But not 7500.

Guy:Incognito

I'm sure her friends are well aware what type of person she is so it's not really possible for her to be defamed.:)

darkpagandeath

And people wonder why Insurance premiums are going up due to ridiculous stuff like this getting the green light from Judges. And why big up Mum ? Do Mums get more embarrassed ?

Fr_Dougal

Mitchell told the court that the store management had taken the decision to bar Ms Hayes from the store after she had been very abusive two weeks before the incident, when she was asked to leave the store after one of her friends allegedly removed a security tag off an item.

Show me your friends, and I'll tell you who you are.

flutered

security gaurds have a rather thankless job, also it involves so very careful what they say and must make sure not to touch some folk, the sum involved when i was in that job was 15,000 for false accusations, that was a long time ago, i recon that she is more than peed off with the award

thebaz

thebaz wrote: »

I'm not - its a reflection on our judiciary , who are so out of step with day to day modern life , most live a pampered life sheltered up in the law library - reading this case seams as no one was actually guilty of anything , except perhaps the soft judge

Well obviously no one was guilty of anything...it was a civil case, not a criminal one.

And the Judge got it spot on. If a security guard requires you to leave a shop, there is an obvious inference that you were shoplifting. Much the same as if the alarm goes off on leaving a store when you have paid for items. Check out the area of defamation called "innuendo". And if it angers you, shake your hand at the sky or the legislators...but drop the silly stuff about pampered Judges. He knows the law, you don't.

kneemos

Security guard should know his job.

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

If a security guard requires you to leave a shop, there is an obvious inference that you were shoplifting.

don't be ridiculous. There are multiple reasons why you may be banned from any particular shop aside from shoplifting.

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

don't be ridiculous. There are multiple reasons why you may be banned from any particular shop aside from shoplifting.

Erm, talk about completely missing the point!

Yes, there may be other reasons, cutting clothes with a scissors, crapping in the changing rooms, whatever

The point (I thought was obvious) is that being removed by a security guard implies that you did something wrong, something that would lower your standing in the eyes of the community such as shoplifting.

Galwayguy35

Anyone who uses language like that to someone who is just doing their job deserves to be removed, she didn't steal anything but she sounds like a right skanger.

Nice "friends" she has as well, who allegedly go around removing security labels from clothes.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Anyone who uses language like that to someone who is just doing their job deserves to be removed, she didn't steal anything but she sounds like a right skanger...

But he wasn't doing his job...unless doing his job is to eject people who have done nothing wrong at all.

It could be in response, and justified. If a security guard removed me from a store in front of people I know, he'd get an earful too.

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

But he wasn't doing his job...unless doing his job is to eject people who have done nothing wrong at all.

It could be in response, and justified. If a security guard removed me from a store in front of people I know, he'd get an earful too.

Do you hang around with people who draw the suspicion of security staff in clothes shops?

I'm sure you don't and neither do I, people aren't asked to leave for no reason.

sabat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well obviously no one was guilty of anything...it was a civil case, not a criminal one.

And the Judge got it spot on. If a security guard requires you to leave a shop, there is an obvious inference that you were shoplifting. Much the same as if the alarm goes off on leaving a store when you have paid for items. Check out the area of defamation called "innuendo". And if it angers you, shake your hand at the sky or the legislators...but drop the silly stuff about pampered Judges. He knows the law, you don't.

I presume they have a big sign saying "management reserves the right to refuse admission" which is exactly what the security was doing in this case - refusing admission. Nobody has an automatic right to enter a premises - I'd love to see what would happen if someone like yer wan and her pals rocked up to one of the judge's favourite restaurants and started ordering lobster and champagne. Would it be defamatory if the waiter asked them for proof of ability to pay?

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

people aren't asked to leave for no reason.

They are sometimes. And when they are, the law of defamation gives them a cause of action. And rightly so, remember all that we have is an allegation, by a security guard, that not her but someone she was with, didn't steal but removed a tag...he was wrong to remove her.

sabat

sabat wrote: »

I presume they have a big sign saying "management reserves the right to refuse admission" which is exactly what the security was doing in this case - refusing admission. Nobody has an automatic right to enter a premises - I'd love to see what would happen if someone like yer wan and her pals rocked up to one of the judge's favourite restaurants and started ordering lobster and champagne. Would it be defamatory if the waiter asked them for proof of ability to pay?

Um, big signs don't trump the law...even big colouredy signs with capitals and all...

And she wasn't refused admission. She was in the shop, she was wrongly removed. The Courts made the correct decision.

kylith

She was asked to leave a shop which she was banned from. What she did wrong was enter a shop when she knew that she was banned from the premises.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

She was asked to leave a shop which she was banned from. What she did wrong was enter a shop when she knew that she was banned from the premises.

Where did you get that?

The article in the OP says something completely different, that the Court found that she thought she could go in. There is no finding that she was both banned and she knew this.

spurious

kneemos wrote:

Security guard should know his job.

I'd say in this case he did his job well.

sabat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Um, big signs don't trump the law...even big colouredy signs with capitals and all...

'Fraid they do.
"Management is not responsible for articles lost or stolen on premises"
"Cars parked at owners' risk" etc
These aren't put up for fun.

kneemos

kylith wrote: »

She was asked to leave a shop which she was banned from. What she did wrong was enter a shop when she knew that she was banned from the premises.

The security guard told her she could come back into the store when she calmed down.No mention of barring.

She may or may not be a walking terror,but the law applies equally to everyone.

sabat

sabat wrote: »

'Fraid they do.
"Management is not responsible for articles lost or stolen on premises"
"Cars parked at owners' risk" etc
These aren't put up for fun.

Again, no they don't. You are as wrong as you can be.

I can't stick a sign on myself saying I can't be sued. Signs mean very little in most areas of the law, save for occupier's liability where they are popular. Even where a person signs a note saying they read and understood the sign, it is no protection from being sued.

And certainly there is no sign that says "we can defame you, but these few words mean you can't sue us".

VincePP

I think where the error was that the security guy said "you know why" and by not saying the exact reason gave this scumbag the excuse to sue - remember scum like this are professional at what they do and have chaser solicitors as the number one number on their phone.

If security said that she was banned due to abusive and threatening language used previously, then she would have had no case.

I do reckon she got the judge on a good day and it will be appealed.

spurious

spurious wrote: »

I'd say in this case he did his job well.

Opening his company to a claim, which they lost, and rightly so, is doing ones job well? Between costs and damages this is a claim that will cost tens of thousands. I'd say it was a bad decision all round.

VincePP

VincePP wrote: »

I think where the error was that the security guy said "you know why" and by not saying the exact reason gave this scumbag the excuse to sue - remember scum like this are professional at what they do and have chaser solicitors as the number one number on their phone.

Nope, again giving a reason would be useless, if the reason was wrong.

And repeatedly calling her scum doesn't add to your point. It suggests you have judged her, from a few lines in a newspaper, in which she was as a matter of fact and law, the wronged party.

homerjay2005

kneemos wrote: »

Security guard should know his job.

When you see the amount of scumbags out there and then Looking at this case, security guards have an impossible task.

No training or knowledge can help you with certain people who defy all logic.as to how this case got to court is one thing, how it was successful is astounding.

Youngblood.III

Mmmmm...what's to stop me taking a case against a bouncer at a nightclub if they say this to me at the door?

That's a disgrace.. 7.5k for nothing. I'd set out to be mistakenly accused of wrongdoing in front of people just to sue after reading this. Far more profitable than stealing.

HeidiHeidi

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Any chance you could post an extract, or give a summary of what this is about?

I'm reluctant to contribute more to the Indo's coffers by succumbing to their clickbait, tbh.

How could you give them money if you decide to not click any ads?

homerjay2005

The comments section on the Irish Times Facebook is well worth a read!

Some classic comments and a ringing endorsement of the education system in certain parts of the country

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How could you give them money if you decide to not click any ads?

Inappropriate username.

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How could you give them money if you decide to not click any ads?

Ad impressions, I.e views, earn cash although not as much as clickthroughs.

spurious

Anyone who knows the people involved knows the truth. This isn't the first of these cases. Another madam got a few bob out of a city centre grocery shop a few years ago after kicking the security guard. It's an industry.

MilesMorales1

spurious wrote: »

Anyone who knows the people involved knows the truth. This isn't the first of these cases. Another madam got a few bob out of a city centre grocery shop a few years ago after kicking the security guard. It's an industry.

If thats true, why did she get such a large payment? Unless the judge is unaware I mean/

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Ad impressions, I.e views, earn cash although not as much as clickthroughs.

The advertiser has to choose between cpc and cpm and the majority use cost per click. If it is cpm, it's a tiny amount.

melissak

sabat wrote: »

'Fraid they do.
"Management is not responsible for articles lost or stolen on premises"
"Cars parked at owners' risk" etc
These aren't put up for fun.

What is the law on this do you Know?
I've seen a sign that said trespassers will be shot. I doubt that is valid. 7500 is a lot for being a bit embarrassed.
.

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Opening his company to a claim, which they lost, and rightly so, is doing ones job well? Between costs and damages this is a claim that will cost tens of thousands. I'd say it was a bad decision all round.

Why was the case "rightly lost"

VinLieger

Reading between the lines of the information describing here in the articles about this it's pretty easy to see the kind of person she is

VincePP

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope, again giving a reason would be useless, if the reason was wrong.

And repeatedly calling her scum doesn't add to your point. It suggests you have judged her, from a few lines in a newspaper, in which she was as a matter of fact and law, the wronged party.

But the reason wasn't wrong and the truth is the ultimate defence in any action. It was acknowledged that she was banned for abusive behaviour. The error was guard just said "you know why " and that led it open to interpretation and she got the judge on a good day.

As for scum - I'm in retail and people like this are scum.

Eugene Norman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why was the case "rightly lost"

Because it's the law of defamation.

You only have to read all the posts here and see how many now refer to her as "scum" even though there is no finding that she herself did anything wrong...other than be in the company of someone a security guard believed was removing tags on a previous occasion. A lot of people believe they now "know" her and "her type". Defamation law is not based on "types", it's based on the right if an individual to protect their character and reputation and hers is fairly shredded here...

languagenerd

I hate this kind of crap. She didn't suffer any loss of earnings so why does she deserve any money at all, let alone €7500? A handful of her friends and a few other customers who have probably not seen her since *may* have thought she was shoplifting. There's now a newspaper article or seven saying she wasn't shoplifting or "under suspicion of having done anything suspicious" (brilliant writing from the Indo there). Surely that has redressed the wrong against her, especially when the judge acknowledged she had had "words" with the security guard two weeks before that. I could understand if her legal costs to clear her name were covered, but that's about it.

These frivolous lawsuits are crippling businesses here, hiking up insurance rates all round and preventing security guards from doing their jobs in cases where they know people are planning to shoplift. Why do people automatically expect monetary compensation for minor wrongs that didn't cost them any money whatsoever?

languagenerd

languagenerd wrote: »

I hate this kind of crap. She didn't suffer any loss of earnings so why does she deserve any money at all, let alone €7500?

All defamations are actionable per se and do not need proof of special damages since the 2009 Act. But even prior to that this would have been actionable anyway.

kneemos

languagenerd wrote: »

I hate this kind of crap. She didn't suffer any loss of earnings so why does she deserve any money at all, let alone €7500? A handful of her friends and a few other customers who have probably not seen her since *may* have thought she was shoplifting. There's now a newspaper article or seven saying she wasn't shoplifting or "under suspicion of having done anything suspicious" (brilliant writing from the Indo there). Surely that has redressed the wrong against her, especially when the judge acknowledged she had had "words" with the security guard two weeks before that. I could understand if her legal costs to clear her name were covered, but that's about it.

These frivolous lawsuits are crippling businesses here, hiking up insurance rates all round and preventing security guards from doing their jobs in cases where they know people are planning to shoplift. Why do people automatically expect monetary compensation for minor wrongs that didn't cost them any money whatsoever?

Laws exist to prevent a headlong decent in anarchy.