Judge dismisses defamation case over €1 shopping bag

Cork Trucker

Can we have more of these kind of judgments please.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/1118/1092670-marks-spencer-bag/

A €75,000 damages claim for defamation, over whether a Marks and Spencer customer had paid for a €1 shopping bag, has been described by a judge as over the top.

Judge John O'Connor said in the Circuit Civil Court that a store checkout operator asking someone if they had paid for a bag did not give rise to a defamation action nor did becoming upset at such a question justify a claim.

I was embarrassed, shocked and upset when the checkout operator placed the change on the counter instead of my hand. Need at least €75,000 to soften the blow to my ego.

Entitlement knows no bounds.

Cork Trucker

Deleted User wrote: »

I was embarrassed, shocked and upset when the checkout operator placed the change on the counter instead of my hand. Need at least €75,000 to soften the blow to my ego.

Entitlement knows no bounds.

The impact of a compo culture on our society, people think they can sue for the slightest thing. Another person who got a free run at it, whether costs are awarded against her or not, the odds of that money being collected is slim to none

is_that_so

What was her solicitor up to? Don't they know the law?

daheff

is_that_so wrote: »

What was her solicitor up to? Don't they know the law?

They don't need to know the law....they need to know the likelihood of getting paid out .....either before or during a case.

They then need to explain that to their client who decides how far to push the cash case

Some of these work on a no win no fee basis and have the client pay insurance to cover the legal fees.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Reading the article the checkout operator demanded she 'prove she had paid for the "Bag for Life" and had to produce a receipt. That shouldn't happen, not saying theirs a claim for compo, but she should have told the operator to f**k off and left it at that

is_that_so

daheff wrote: »

They don't need to know the law....they need to know the likelihood of getting paid out .....either before or during a case.

They then need to explain that to their client who decides how far to push the cash case

Some of these work on a no win no fee basis and have the client pay insurance to cover the legal fees.

They are going to look like idiots in this type of scenario.

Working class heroes

Maverick Glamorous Poker wrote: »

Reading the article the checkout operator demanded she 'prove she had paid for the "Bag for Life" and had to produce a receipt. That shouldn't happen, not saying theirs a claim for compo, but she should have told the operator to f**k off and left it at that

Indeed. Maybe by way of compensation the judge should have compelled M&S to provide the claimant the use of said bags for the rest of her life. A bag for life maybe.....

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

What was her solicitor up to? Don't they know the law?

What they were paid to do presumably.

Cork Trucker

Maverick Glamorous Poker wrote: »

Reading the article the checkout operator demanded she 'prove she had paid for the "Bag for Life" and had to produce a receipt. That shouldn't happen, not saying theirs a claim for compo, but she should have told the operator to f**k off and left it at that

The checkout operator needs to brush up on their customer service skills yes, did it warrant a civil action no.

ohnonotgmail

Maverick Glamorous Poker wrote: »

Reading the article the checkout operator demanded she 'prove she had paid for the "Bag for Life" and had to produce a receipt. That shouldn't happen, not saying theirs a claim for compo, but she should have told the operator to f**k off and left it at that

except the checkout operator said that she never said that. who to believe? the woman who stands to make 10's of thousands or the checkout operator with nothing to really gain?

Cork Trucker

Deleted User wrote: »

What they were paid to do presumably.

Is there an insurance scheme in place for losing a civil action? I see that apparently there's an insurance scheme? i've never heard of it.

Cork Trucker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

except the checkout operator said that she never said that. who to believe? the woman who stands to make 10's of thousands or the checkout operator with nothing to really gain?

Is it a case of 'The customer is always right' and the plaintiff took the case on that basis? Thinking they would be believed over the checkout operator?

ohnonotgmail

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Is it a case of 'The customer is always right' and the plaintiff took the case on that basis? Thinking they would be believed over the checkout operator?

perhaps. they were an idiot to take it though. or rather their solicitor was.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

What they were paid to do presumably.

I wonder did they get paid as they lost? My attitude to a solicitor would be please advise me, not let's go to court. Mind you the question of legal advice would never have arisen anyway.

Beasty

Working class heroes wrote: »

Indeed. Maybe by way of compensation the judge should have compelled M&S to provide the claimant the use of said bags for the rest of her life. A bag for life maybe.....

I picked up one of those bags 7 years 4 months and 3 days ago. It's in tatters now. Who's that solicitor? M&S sold it to me under false premises (unless I die before we get to court, in which case fair enough)

is_that_so

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Is it a case of 'The customer is always right' and the plaintiff took the case on that basis? Thinking they would be believed over the checkout operator?

My recollection of the defamation of character (open to correction) is that it applies if you have been accused of theft without adequate evidence once you have left a store. No evidence of anything like that here.

is_that_so

Beasty wrote: »

I picked up one of those bags 7 years 4 months and 3 days ago. It's in tatters now. Who's that solicitor? M&S sold it to me under false premises (unless I die before we get to court, in which case fair enough)

Many of my promised bag for life bags are now at the bottom of a landfill!

daheff

is_that_so wrote: »

They are going to look like idiots in this type of scenario.

Yes. Richer idiots if they win.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

except the checkout operator said that she never said that. who to believe? the woman who stands to make 10's of thousands or the checkout operator with nothing to really gain?

True and in general I have never came across a checkout operator that cared, ever.

Sofiztikated

Judge John O'Connor should have said in the Circuit Civil Court that a store checkout operator asking someone if they had paid for a bag did not give rise to a defamation action nor did becoming upset at such a question justify a claim gerrouta dat garden, ya gowl. Go and have a good hard look at yourself.

Insurance is there for a reason. People have to make claims for all number of things as recompense for actual reasons.

Then you get ****wits like this.

Cork Trucker

is_that_so wrote: »

My recollection of the defamation of character (open to correction) is that it applies if you have been accused of theft without adequate evidence once you have left a store. No evidence of anything like that here.

I’m her eyes she assumed it was an accusation, as said that doesn’t apply here. Just a chancer thinking they had a quick buck sorted in time for Christmas

Sofiztikated

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I’m her eyes she assumed it was an accusation, as said that doesn’t apply here. Just a chancer thinking they had a quick buck sorted in time for Christmas

And letters from the solicitor within a week?

Either that's a really quick solicitor, or she had that lined up already.

Chris_Heilong

People should not get huge payouts over hurt feelings, happy the judge made the correct decision, but in these cases it is the exception and not the rule.

alchemist33

I'm still laughing at Miley and Miley solicitors, a name you wouldn't see every day atall atall

twowheelsonly

Maverick Glamorous Poker wrote: »

Reading the article the checkout operator demanded she 'prove she had paid for the "Bag for Life" and had to produce a receipt. That shouldn't happen, not saying theirs a claim for compo, but she should have told the operator to f**k off and left it at that

Cork Trucker wrote: »

The checkout operator needs to brush up on their customer service skills yes, did it warrant a civil action no.

That's the claimants version of events. The checkout operator gave a slightly different version. The Judge believed the checkout operators version from what I can see. Well done to that Judge ….

silver2020

Maverick Glamorous Poker wrote: »

Reading the article the checkout operator demanded she 'prove she had paid for the "Bag for Life" and had to produce a receipt. That shouldn't happen, not saying theirs a claim for compo, but she should have told the operator to f**k off and left it at that

Nope - that is what the person claiming the compo said the checkout person said.

I'd always be suspicious of what someone claiming compo for such rubbish says and take whatever such person says with a pinch of salt.

Costs should have been awarded against her and her solicitors should have been named and shamed.

HBC08

While there continues to be no sanction for the plaintiff in cases like this then it will continue.

It's like getting a free ticket to a really scummy lotto.

Widdensushi

wonder if she has any political affiliation.

mikemac2

Beasty wrote: »

I picked up one of those bags 7 years 4 months and 3 days ago. It's in tatters now. Who's that solicitor? M&S sold it to me under false premises (unless I die before we get to court, in which case fair enough)

The greatest scam since the film The Never Ending story

paleoperson

daheff wrote: »

They don't need to know the law....they need to know the likelihood of getting paid out .....either before or during a case.

They then need to explain that to their client who decides how far to push the cash case

Some of these work on a no win no fee basis and have the client pay insurance to cover the legal fees.

Somehow, I kinda suspect this wasn't the case this time. :rolleyes:

Cork Trucker

Sofiztikated wrote: »

And letters from the solicitor within a week?

Either that's a really quick solicitor, or she had that lined up already.

Probably planned for a long time; merely like a hunter waiting for it’s prey until the opportunity presented itself in her opinion

jonnygee

is_that_so wrote: »

Many of my promised bag for life bags are now at the bottom of a landfill!

the "bag for life" means the life of the bag not the life of the bagholder. they give you a new one free when the old one passes away.

silver2020

daheff wrote: »

They don't need to know the law....they need to know the likelihood of getting paid out .....either before or during a case.

They then need to explain that to their client who decides how far to push the cash case

Some of these work on a no win no fee basis and have the client pay insurance to cover the legal fees.

Almost all work on a no win no fee basis (your side only), but there's no insurance to cover it.

How it works is like a one armed bandit. Pull the lever 20 times, if it pays out 10 of those 20 times, you are a winner.

Costs are inflated to a level that cases such as these are well covered by the cases they win.

Its a total con and those that suffer are genuine claimants.

Harry Palmr

jonnygee wrote: »

the "bag for life" means the life of the bag not the life of the bagholder. they give you a new one free when the old one passes away.

I'm looking forward to getting one in the will.

As for the case, dismissal was the only logical thing otherwise it would be mayhem. And the coda "you'll pay legal costs for both parties from here on in my court " hopefully will soften a few coughs.

is_that_so

jonnygee wrote: »

the "bag for life" means the life of the bag not the life of the bagholder. they give you a new one free when the old one passes away.

Is this buried in tiny T&Cs somewhere?! Never heard that before!

Tired Gardener

We all know that the compensation culture is abhorrent, and out of control.

Just reflect for a minute how ramped up that culture would have been if the Judge had ruled in favour of the claimant?

Someone buy that Judge a pint!

dhaughton99

A yolk from the flats with a brass neck and trying to pull a scam. What’s new? What surprised me was that she shopped in marks.

Beasty

mikemac2 wrote: »

The greatest scam since the film The Never Ending story

Life really should mean life!

Steer55

I cant imagine going.to.my.solicitor and asking him to bring a case to sue my local supermarker cos i was asked if i had paid for a bag. He would tell me to go lump it, and rightly so. The mind boggles it really does, a €75,000 claim, 😮

Stratvs

“Judge O'Connor made no order for costs but warned that in future claims where there was no evidence of defamation he would award costs against the plaintiff.”

If that started happening perhaps the numbers of such cases would decrease.

Cork Trucker

Stratvs wrote: »

“Judge O'Connor made no order for costs but warned that in future claims where there was no evidence of defamation he would award costs against the plaintiff.”

If that started happening perhaps the numbers of such cases would decrease.

Yeah, each side must pay their own costs, or are supposed to.

colm_mcm

Stratvs wrote: »

“Judge O'Connor made no order for costs but warned that in future claims where there was no evidence of defamation he would award costs against the plaintiff.”

If that started happening perhaps the numbers of such cases would decrease.

Basically you get the first go for free.

riffmongous

Stratvs wrote: »

“Judge O'Connor made no order for costs but warned that in future claims where there was no evidence of defamation he would award costs against the plaintiff.”

If that started happening perhaps the numbers of such cases would decrease.

Costs should be against the plaintiff and the solicitor together. Then they might stop encouraging people to bring these crappy cases to court and wasting everyone's time.

Cork Trucker

riffmongous wrote: »

Costs should be against the plaintiff and the solicitor together. Then they might stop encouraging people to bring these crappy cases to court and wasting everyone's time.

The judge may have been a solicitor of that company before going to the bench or even a barrister affiliated to the solicitor, Judges using their discretion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

More decisions like this, please.

Stratvs

Stratvs wrote: »

“Judge O'Connor made no order for costs but warned that in future claims where there was no evidence of defamation he would award costs against the plaintiff.”

If that started happening perhaps the numbers of such cases would decrease.

colm_mcm wrote: »

Basically you get the first go for free.

I wonder the way it was worded did he mean that or did he mean any other cases coming before him from any (not necessarily that specific) plaintiff. In which case that’s the free one, no more for anyone else.

yosser hughes

Why don't they name the solicitor?
edit: Oh, they did. Miley and Miley Solicitors

http://www.mileyandmiley.ie/#section2

Stratvs

yosser hughes wrote: »

Why don't they name the solicitor?
edit: Oh, they did. Miley and Miley Solicitors

http://www.mileyandmiley.ie/#section2

“Ms Walsh who appeared with Miley and Miley solicitors For M&S” They were the stores solicitors not the plaintiffs who appear to be nameless.

colm_mcm

yosser hughes wrote: »

Why don't they name the solicitor?
edit: Oh, they did. Miley and Miley Solicitors

http://www.mileyandmiley.ie/#section2

Well holy god.

Cork Trucker

yosser hughes wrote: »

Why don't they name the solicitor?
edit: Oh, they did. Miley and Miley Solicitors

http://www.mileyandmiley.ie/#section2

Reminds me of the Father Ted episode where the solicitor was from Corless, Corless & Sweeney