Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Judge dismisses defamation case over €1 shopping bag

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    jonnygee
    Registered Users Posts: 589 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    silver2020
    Registered Users Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭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!


  • Options
    #38
    dhaughton99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,381 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    mikemac2 wrote: »
    The greatest scam since the film The Never Ending story :(
    Life really should mean life!


  • Options
    #40
    Steer55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 226 ✭✭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, 😮


  • Options
    #41
    Stratvs
    Registered Users Posts: 958 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users Posts: 73,384 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    More decisions like this, please.


  • Options
    #47
    Stratvs
    Registered Users Posts: 958 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    yosser hughes
    Registered Users Posts: 3,879 ✭✭✭yosser hughes


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

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


  • Options
    #49
    Stratvs
    Registered Users Posts: 958 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users Posts: 73,384 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Stratvs
    Registered Users Posts: 958 ✭✭✭Stratvs


    Stratvs wrote: »
    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.

    RTÉ news just reported this as to mean in any other cases coming before him of this type he will award costs of both against an unsuccessful plaintiff. So no more freebies.


  • Options
    #53
    jmreire
    Registered Users Posts: 8,298 ✭✭✭jmreire


    silver2020 wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, and the Judge did say that in future anyone bringing such spurious claim's in his court, and being dismissed, would have the full cost's awarded against them. Its about time, and prosecute them too. Only when the legal eagles start losing money when the case goes against them, will they start being more selective on the advice they give their customer's...and on what case's they take on. Seems to be a bit more and more we are hearing about cases being kicked out...( thank God) would it be anything to do with the forth coming election?


  • Options
    #54
    KaneToad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,162 ✭✭✭KaneToad


    I think Charlie & Craig put it best:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HbbhXPDQ7-s


  • Options
    #55
    Duke of Url
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭Duke of Url


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    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!

    That Judge has been responsible for many a large payout


  • Options
    #56
    Duke of Url
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭Duke of Url


    Who was her solicitor?


  • Options
    #57
    Stratvs
    Registered Users Posts: 958 ✭✭✭Stratvs


    Cork Trucker wrote: »
    Reminds me of the Father Ted episode where the solicitor was from Corless, Corless & Sweeney

    https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/02/lawyers-with-brilliant-names-you-just-couldnt-make-up/


  • Options
    #58
    jonnygee
    Registered Users Posts: 589 ✭✭✭jonnygee


    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_that_so wrote: »
    Is this buried in tiny T&Cs somewhere?! Never heard that before!

    It is true, but it was only in the Northern Ireland/Uk supermarkets. The heavier quality plastic bag for life cost 10p originally and was replaced for free when worn out. I don't think they were free in the south.


  • Options
    #59
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    I once bought some stuff in Aldi and took an Aldi bag out of my pocket to put them into. The cashier gave me a dirty look and asked where I'd gotten the bag. I told her it was mine. I was prepared to show her how creased up it was from being in my pocket but she didn't question me further. She still had a bit of an attitude though. I still have the emotional scars. They say time heals all wounds but I can't imagine this pain will ever go away.


  • Options
    #60
    jay0109
    Registered Users Posts: 2,669 ✭✭✭jay0109


    Stratvs wrote: »
    “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.

    Media's legal correspondents protecting the reputation of their friends


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    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.

    Agreed, these frivilous cases are exactly the reason why insurance prices have gone through the roof because pathetic trolls and chancers have been allowed to game the system by putting in these kinds of claims to begin with. They shouldn't allow these cases to reach court all they're doing is encouraging those who are only out for easy money and nothing else.


Advertisement