Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Mrsmum

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Yes but to stick with the idea. If you go to a restaurant you don't expect to see a unicycle that you are encouraged to try between courses holding a steak knife.

And if someone claimed for that, I would think it was equally as stupid.

VinLieger

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Over in the politics forum the spin bots are shouting about 20m fines if CCTV footage is leaked.


The internal meeting with their FG overlords last night possibly briefed the minions what to post in public forums.

Like it or not, theres valid arguments that leaking the cctv would fall under a GDPR breach.


Personally id love to see it so I could laugh at her and also know exactly who the 2 friends were as i suspect they may be also politicians but i also understand if its simply not legal for it to be released.


Claiming conspiracy theories about state sponsored propaganda because you don't like the reality of data protection laws is just sad.

InTheShadows

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The spin story is out now

1. Why would you have a swing in pub?
2. Insurance companies are screwing everyone anyway
3. FG are going to do an intensive review....EVERYONE is available to interview
4. You go to pub to get drunk, not to go on swings....

All to cover up the main facts which are
1. She lied
2. She lied to cover up the lies
3. She forgot the original lies and then lied some more to cover up those
4. Another FG politician gave bad legal advice....
5. Leo will never make a decision in his life
6. FG as standard are as crooked as every and are trying to cover this up

I'd imagine FG's PR department have been hard at it the last 24hrs working out a strategy and putting pressure on the media to tow the "everyone is bullying Maria" line.

They'll be hoping for some international event/disaster to push it off the agenda altogether.

Auguste Comte

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It was an accident waiting to happen.

It's a good thing this was noticed by an upstanding (so to speak)public representive and member of the law and order party Fine Gael, and brought to the attention of management before some complete chancer, or gob****e had an accident and ran, (in a very bad time for them) to their shady lawyers and exaggerated their injuries in the hope of claiming a few quid they are most likely not deserving of.

zell12

"Humanity has been crossed"

I'm still guffawing

Stop moaning ffs

I thought it was common knowledge FG have their youth branch and lackies on forums such as these and Facebook and Twitter commenting on anything / government disaster of the day and spinning it.
Wasn’t Leo caught on record making the suggestion for it as part of his spin unit?

BattleCorp

Raisins wrote: »

The system is not rotten. The rules / laws are in place.

1. It’s a criminal offence to say anything misleading in a pi claim.

It's a criminal offence to lie in court. Saying something misleading or mistaken by accident isn't a criminal offence. Not if it's a genuine error.

I don't know if Bailey lied or not. I have my suspicions. I'm just saying that making a mistake in evidence through a genuine error does occasionally happen and that's not necessarily a criminal action.

Are many people prosecuted? No. Is that because of a rotten legal system? No. That’s a question for the Gardaí and DPP.

It's often difficult to prove someone told a lie on purpose so that's why it's difficult to prosecute someone.

2. If a defendant sees that there’s something false / misleading re the evidence they can apply to the court immediately to have a claim dismissed.

And it's up to the court to make that decision. They don't often dismiss cases though. If you look at a court summons, the plaintiff usually makes loads of allegations of negligence. If something is false, the court usually rules out that point of negligence but they often continue with the case.

I've seen a case where a man was videoed by a PI footing turf in a bog many months after his accident. This video was shown in court. The plaintiff's barrister produced a letter where a doctor said that the plaintiff would benefit from footing the turf, that it would help with his rehabilitation. A form of physiotherapy if you will. The judge said that was a good point and the case continued. The man won his case.

3. Even if only one tiny part of the facts are false / misleading, once a defendant demonstrates that to a court then the entire case must be dismissed under s 26 of the 2004 civil liability act. That is mandatory. The court has to dismiss - the judge has absolutely no discretion.

Not true. If it's clearly a lie, then maybe yes. But the law also takes into account genuine errors.

Again, I'm not saying Bailey made a genuine error.

joe40

Raisins wrote: »

The system is not rotten. The rules / laws are in place.

1. It’s a criminal offence to say anything misleading in a pi claim.

Are many people prosecuted? No. Is that because of a rotten legal system? No. That’s a question for the Gardaí and DPP.

2. If a defendant sees that there’s something false / misleading re the evidence they can apply to the court immediately to have a claim dismissed.

3. Even if only one tiny part of the facts are false / misleading, once a defendant demonstrates that to a court then the entire case must be dismissed under s 26 of the 2004 civil liability act. That is mandatory. The court has to dismiss - the judge has absolutely no discretion.

4. Not only can a court award costs against the claimant they can even award them directly against a claimant’s solicitor.

Those things may be the "law" but the reality is false/exaggerated claims are happening all the time with largely no repercussions.
In this case why would a credible legal company think a business should be sued because an adult could not sit on a swing without falling off.
If the business is culpable for that it would imply that every playground in the country would need supervised swings.

The fact is the law firm knew that she had a good chance of success, even though the claim is patently nonsensical by any reasonable standard.
So again massive potential reward with no downside.

Now I'm not a legal expert, but did she not claim not to be able to run for 3 months but took part in a 10k. If that is not false or misleading evidence what is.

If the business or insurance company just paid up, or Maria Bailey did not have a public profile this case would just join the long list of ridiculous claims that take place.

I do agree the Guards and DPP should be doing more to prosecute fraudulent claims, that is another part of the whole system that needs to change.

ohnonotgmail

Raisins wrote: »

The system is not rotten. The rules / laws are in place.

1. It’s a criminal offence to say anything misleading in a pi claim.

Are many people prosecuted? No. Is that because of a rotten legal system? No. That’s a question for the Gardaí and DPP.

2. If a defendant sees that there’s something false / misleading re the evidence they can apply to the court immediately to have a claim dismissed.

3. Even if only one tiny part of the facts are false / misleading, once a defendant demonstrates that to a court then the entire case must be dismissed under s 26 of the 2004 civil liability act. That is mandatory. The court has to dismiss - the judge has absolutely no discretion.

4. Not only can a court award costs against the claimant they can even award them directly against a claimant’s solicitor.

yeah, that just isn't true.

McMurphy

VinLieger wrote: »

Like it or not, theres valid arguments that leaking the cctv would fall under a GDPR breach.


Personally id love to see it so I could laugh at her and also know exactly who the 2 friends were as i suspect they may be also politicians but i also understand if its simply not legal for it to be released.


Claiming conspiracy theories about state sponsored propaganda because you don't like the reality of data protection laws is just sad.

I'd also love to see it tested here, I know this is pre GDRP - but I believe there are certain similar exemptions with GDRP also.

Virgin Trains did not break data laws with Corbyn CCTV release

Virgin Trains did not breach data protection laws when it published CCTV images of Jeremy Corbyn trying to find a seat on one of its services, the Information Commissioner’s Office has ruled.

While normally such publication would breach the rules, Virgin had a “legitimate interest” in releasing footage of Corbyn to counter what the train company saw as misleading news reports that the Labour leader had been unable to find a seat.

I'm sure if push came to shove the Dean hotel might have legitimate interest in releasing CCTV, even if for "safety reasons" on how to not use the swings in Sophie's.

A few pixelated faces. Job done.

Fingers crossed that it sees the light of day.

sideswipe

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The spin story is out now

1. Why would you have a swing in pub?
2. Insurance companies are screwing everyone anyway
3. FG are going to do an intensive review....EVERYONE is available to interview
4. You go to pub to get drunk, not to go on swings....

Do they not realise people need to take Instagram worthy photos on a night out to prove they are living their best lives!

odyssey06

If impersonation doesn't even warrant an actual jail term when trying to defraud an insurance company, what does?
https://www.thejournal.ie/bogus-personal-injury-claim-court-4660082-May2019/

Garda Damien Reilly told Dara Hayes BL, prosecuting, that Winnifred tried to make a claim against RSA insurance in which she pretended to be Stokes and said she had been involved in an accident on 5 August 2013.

Suckit

Shatter was on SOR this morning and said that as a solicitor he would have asked his client if they understood what they were suing for, what the outcome may be and to go over ever little detail etc.
He said that he would have serious questions for whatever part member or lawyer gave her legal advice.

Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

Ash.J.Williams

Suckit wrote: »

Shatter was on SOR this morning and said that as a solicitor he would have asked his client if they understood what they were suing for, what the outcome may be and to go over ever little detail etc.
He said that he would have serious questions for whatever part member or lawyer gave her legal advice.

Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

It's all so public that if Madigan is implicated and Leo doesn't sanction then we will know about it and that will not be good for fg.

blanch152

VinLieger wrote: »

Like it or not, theres valid arguments that leaking the cctv would fall under a GDPR breach.


Personally id love to see it so I could laugh at her and also know exactly who the 2 friends were as i suspect they may be also politicians but i also understand if its simply not legal for it to be released.


Claiming conspiracy theories about state sponsored propaganda because you don't like the reality of data protection laws is just sad.

Johnny doesn't like being wrong, and easier to blame a conspiracy to cover his ignorance of GDPR regulation.

joe40

Suckit wrote: »

Shatter was on SOR this morning and said that as a solicitor he would have asked his client if they understood what they were suing for, what the outcome may be and to go over ever little detail etc.
He said that he would have serious questions for whatever part member or lawyer gave her legal advice.

Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

I'm no fan of Shatter, but he is absolutely right here.

A fraudulent/silly individual claimant can only do a certain amount of damage, but a legal firm can put through hundreds of these type of cases.
If all legal fine, but if someone is also claiming to be a public representative that needs to be examined.
Not necessarily from a legal sense but at least in a reputational capacity.

That why I think if all the attention is on Maria Bailey others equally at blame will be quietly forgotten.

McMurphy

Hasn't Madigan basically admitted that she was Bailey's lawyer ?

She said: "Whether I did or didn't, there is client-solicitor confidentiality so I am not in a position to say.

If she's not your client, what confidentiality would you be breaking?


Why couldn't she just deny it if she's not involved?

FishOnABike

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Or the guy in Australia who sued himself and won. He threw a boomerang and it came back and hit him. He sued himself for negligence and injury and won. His insurance company had to give him a huge payout. Clever of him.

He might have got a huge payout but he'll have no luck with it. It will come back on him in the future.

Ash.J.Williams

Could the rotund lady that gave the moose cafe a bad review prompting them to publish stills of the cctv of her enthusiastically ramming the food down her face box sue for gdpr breach?

Raisins

BattleCorp wrote: »

Raisins wrote: »

The system is not rotten. The rules / laws are in place.

1. It’s a criminal offence to say anything misleading in a pi claim.

It's a criminal offence to lie in court. Saying something misleading or mistaken by accident isn't a criminal offence. Not if it's a genuine error.

I don't know if Bailey lied or not. I have my suspicions. I'm just saying that making a mistake in evidence through a genuine error does occasionally happen and that's not necessarily a criminal action.

Are many people prosecuted? No. Is that because of a rotten legal system? No. That’s a question for the Gardaí and DPP.

It's often difficult to prove someone told a lie on purpose so that's why it's difficult to prosecute someone.

2. If a defendant sees that there’s something false / misleading re the evidence they can apply to the court immediately to have a claim dismissed.

And it's up to the court to make that decision. They don't often dismiss cases though. If you look at a court summons, the plaintiff usually makes loads of allegations of negligence. If something is false, the court usually rules out that point of negligence but they often continue with the case.

I've seen a case where a man was videoed by a PI footing turf in a bog many months after his accident. This video was shown in court. The plaintiff's barrister produced a letter where a doctor said that the plaintiff would benefit from footing the turf, that it would help with his rehabilitation. A form of physiotherapy if you will. The judge said that was a good point and the case continued. The man won his case.

3. Even if only one tiny part of the facts are false / misleading, once a defendant demonstrates that to a court then the entire case must be dismissed under s 26 of the 2004 civil liability act. That is mandatory. The court has to dismiss - the judge has absolutely no discretion.

Not true. If it's clearly a lie, then maybe yes. But the law also takes into account genuine errors.

Again, I'm not saying Bailey made a genuine error.

It’s not just a question of lying in court - Section 25 of the 2004 act - it’s specially an offence to give false / misleading evidence in a PI.

I was answering the point made that Maria Baileys case = rotten legal system. I’m not defending Maria Bailey.

BattleCorp

Suckit wrote: »

Shatter was on SOR this morning and said that as a solicitor he would have asked his client if they understood what they were suing for, what the outcome may be and to go over ever little detail etc.
He said that he would have serious questions for whatever part member or lawyer gave her legal advice.

Don't forget though that Shatter's opinion there is only his opinion. His opinion isn't law. Legal people often nearly always disagree.

I'm surprised at Shatter being FG criticising someone else from FG. It's almost as if he has a gripe against the party over something or other.

gormdubhgorm

Suckit wrote: »

Shatter was on SOR this morning and said that as a solicitor he would have asked his client if they understood what they were suing for, what the outcome may be and to go over ever little detail etc.
He said that he would have serious questions for whatever part member or lawyer gave her legal advice.

Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Don't forget though that Shatter's opinion there is only his opinion. His opinion isn't law. Legal people often nearly always disagree.

I'm surprised at Shatter being FG criticising someone else from FG. It's almost as if he has a gripe against the party over something or other.

In fairness to Shatter he is a damn good legal expert, whatever else you say about the fella.
His major downfall seemed to be that he came across as a bit full of himself.
Mick Wallace made great publicity gains on the back of rows with him in the media, I remember.

BattleCorp

Raisins wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

It’s not just a question of lying in court - Section 25 of the 2004 act - it’s specially an offence to give false / misleading evidence in a PI.

I was answering the point made that Maria Baileys case = rotten legal system. I’m not defending Maria Bailey.

I'm not defending Bailey either. I don't think many would defend her.

25.—(1) If, after the commencement of this section, a person gives or dishonestly causes to be given, or adduces or dishonestly causes to be adduced, evidence in a personal injuries action that—

(a) is false or misleading in any material respect, and

(b) he or she knows to be false or misleading,

he or she shall be guilty of an offence.



Check out the bit I highlighted in bold. You have to know that it is false or misleading. So if it was a genuine error (and I'm not saying that), it's not an offence.

Snow Garden

This case is fast becoming one of the biggest political stories over the last 10 years. It really is an Irish classic. I truly believe there are more revelations to follow.

InTheShadows

I'm beginning to think Madigan is knee deep in this also. Varadkar should have kicked Bailey out and made a statement yesterday now this could snowball out of his PR teams hands. As they say it's the little things that trip you up.

ChikiChiki

Suckit wrote: »

Shatter was on SOR this morning and said that as a solicitor he would have asked his client if they understood what they were suing for, what the outcome may be and to go over ever little detail etc.
He said that he would have serious questions for whatever part member or lawyer gave her legal advice.

Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

Funny thing is if Shatter was still a FG TD he would be doing his level best to deflect from the issue.

For once I would love a politician to admit they were wrong and resign gracefully. Just once.

We have a long way to go on this Island to reach clean, transparent and honest politics.

iamwhoiam

https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/food-drink-news/maria-bailey-swing-dublin-pub-16351758

I bet she ends up suing her solicitor!

Raisins

BattleCorp wrote: »

Raisins wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

It’s not just a question of lying in court - Section 25 of the 2004 act - it’s specially an offence to give false / misleading evidence in a PI.

I was answering the point made that Maria Baileys case = rotten legal system. I’m not defending Maria Bailey.

I'm not defending Bailey either. I don't think many would defend her.

25.—(1) If, after the commencement of this section, a person gives or dishonestly causes to be given, or adduces or dishonestly causes to be adduced, evidence in a personal injuries action that—

(a) is false or misleading in any material respect, and

(b) he or she knows to be false or misleading,

he or she shall be guilty of an offence.



Check out the bit I highlighted in bold. You have to know that it is false or misleading. So if it was a genuine error (and I'm not saying that), it's not an offence.

Yes I’m familiar with the section I agree with that - I was pointing out it’s not simply a contempt of court situation but I understand now that wasn’t the point you were making.

If it was claimed you couldn’t run for three months and you then got into the witness box and this was discussed and at that stage under cross examination you again insisted you were injured for 3 months and then a defendant produced evidence of your race time 1 week after the accident, you would find it very hard to explain it away as a genuine error.

The point is that her claim is portrayed as a demonstration of a corrupt / rotten legal system.

gormdubhgorm

I did not realise Alan Shatter wrote a book about his 'political assassination'


Frenzy and Betrayal: The Anatomy of a Political Assassination

https://irishacademicpress.ie/product/frenzy-and-betrayal-the-anatomy-of-a-political-assassination/

'Compelling and sardonic, Frenzy and Betrayal is the deeply disturbing story of how a dedicated, truthful and progressive Irish cabinet minister was falsely accused of wrongdoing and unjustly hounded from office in twenty-first-century Ireland, and his traumatic five-year battle for vindication and the truth.'

I am just wondering can he give Maria Bailey any advice on writing a book?
She might as well start now...

What title would it be?

WKD swings?