Judge dismisses defamation case over €1 shopping bag

joeysoap

M & S fought the case because they were right and they could afford to. how many stores would have made an offer? I’d guess an offer of €5,000:would have been cheaper than paying their own costs

I have never met an employee of Marks who was not professional and customer orientated in their work, but maybe that’s just me.

I’m glad the judge made this judgement

suicide_circus

Duke of Url wrote: »

Who was her solicitor?

some dirtbag no win no fee ambulance chaser presumably

whomitconcerns

Why is she not being made pay costs. They’ll keep doing this as long as no repercussions

gimli2112

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?

this must be the most misinterpreted phrase of all time. What it means is you give the customer what they want. If you have something people want they will buy it.
Thinking that the customer is always right is just wrong.

Jurgen The German

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Why is she not being made pay costs. They’ll keep doing this as long as no repercussions

Reading between the lines, I'd say yer wan is a bit of a fruitcake and the judge recognised that.

"Clearly Ms Fowler is a sensitive woman and I accept she became upset,"

As someone mentioned, the likes of M & S have sufficiently deep pockets to fight cases like this all the way to court but how many small to medium independent retailers are in such a position. Yer probably talking a chunky 5 figure sum for the defense costs of M & S, until frivolous cases like this are properly penalised ie at a minimum costs awarded against the claimant and in the case of blatantly false claims heavy fines and / or criminal convictions then they will continue. There is far too much money to be made for claimants and for their representatives so it's a calculated risk on behalf of the solicitors that take these nonsense cases on.

Tired Gardener

gimli2112 wrote: »

this must be the most misinterpreted phrase of all time. What it means is you give the customer what they want. If you have something people want they will buy it.
Thinking that the customer is always right is just wrong.

When I was a young lad I worked for ASDA. In the staff stairwell there was a big painted guide to customer service. I can't recall it word for word, but it was something like this;

1. The customer is always right.
2. If the customer is wrong, apply rule number 1.

Cork Trucker

Tired Gardener wrote: »

When I was a young lad I worked for ASDA. In the staff stairwell there was a big painted guide to customer service. I can't recall it word for word, but it was something like this;

1. The customer is always right.
2. If the customer is wrong, apply rule number 1.

I was taught this in Tesco 10 years ago, it still applies.

whomitconcerns

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I was taught this in Tesco 10 years ago, it still applies.

All that means is that its not in your remit to decide if they are wrong. This is why there is a next level (in theory) to decide if they actually are right/wrong

ThunbergsAreGo

Should be a picture of this woman with the story

Warn stores when dealing with her

Cork Trucker

whomitconcerns wrote: »

All that means is that its not in your remit to decide if they are wrong. This is why there is a next level (in theory) to decide if they actually are right/wrong

I’m well aware of what it means, it’s the people such as in the article of the OP who think it means different

Cork Trucker

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Should be a picture of this woman with the story

Warn stores when dealing with her

Her photo is on the article albeit shaded

Keyzer

Good to see Judges not putting up with this kind of nonsense but, for every case thrown out, there's another 6 or 7 payouts for ridiculous reasons.

That being said, someone has to foot the bill here. Most likely the tax payer.

ThunbergsAreGo

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Her photo is on the article albeit shaded

Very good, was on the train with a slow connection

is_that_so

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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.

When the local Lidl opened first they'd ask you to lift bags out of the trolley, apologetically mind. Just doing their job even if you feel like a suspect being grilled for a crime you didn't commit!

s7ryf3925pivug

Heard about people pretending to steal things from a particular pharmacy. Put them in their pockets then put them back clandestinely. The objective was to get stopped by the security guard so they could then sue for defamation. The figure of 12k was mentioned so I guess this happened once and there was a 12k payout.

Maybe for the damage to reputation by being shown not to have stolen anything? Personal distress? Dunno. All hearsay anyway.

ohnonotgmail

Keyzer wrote: »

Good to see Judges not putting up with this kind of nonsense but, for every case thrown out, there's another 6 or 7 payouts for ridiculous reasons.

That being said, someone has to foot the bill here. Most likely the tax payer.

the only costs the taxpayer will pay are the costs for the court itself and the judges salary. the two sides will bear their own costs.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only costs the taxpayer will pay are the costs for the court itself and the judges salary. the two sides will bear their own costs.

Yeah, it's the payouts we can get hit with through higher premiums.

171170

Duke of Url wrote: »

That Judge has been responsible for many a large payout

Here's one recent one. Not a particularly large payout, but one that appears very generous, given the circumstances.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4785226/luke-keeler-sister-damages-video-goal/


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/whiplash-injuries-in-low-impact-accidents-have-become-a-social-disease-court-told-1.4082020

Does it make the news when people are awarded stupid things like this? Is it a common thing? I ask because I want 75k

Tony EH

Harry Palmr wrote: »

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.

I'd be of the mind that the legal team that suggested going to court and trying to spoof out €75,000 be tapped for a few bob too.

Because I bet it wasn't your woman who came up with that figure. It was undoubtedly put to her by the solicitor she went to and unless these phonies are penalised, these kind of claims will never go away.

The legal profession bears a HUGE responsibility for the increase in these bogus and outrageous claims, but never even get remotely criticised for their part.

Jurgen The German

I was at a fraud conference this morning and Chief Justice Frank Clarke was one of the speakers. He discussed insurance reforms in terms of recalibration of personal injury awards. Those responsible for leading said recalibration have been identified and will commence the task shortly. It obviously wont be an over night fix but public opinion has reached the tipping point. A poll that was conducted of people that dont work either in insurance or law indicated that circa 80% of people want to see dramatic cuts made to compo awards, by 50% or more. The intention is to benchmark awards against those given in comparable economies like the UK, France, Italy and Germany.

It will take time for it to filter down but the right noises are being made at least.

silver2020

Jurgen The German wrote: »

Those responsible for leading said recalibration have been identified and will commence the task shortly.

That will only work if the majority of the group do not have vested interests.

Therefore a majority should not be in the legal, profession, insurance profession or medical profession as they have good reason for the gravy train to continue.

See what happened to Alan Shatter when he tried to reform the legal profession - they all got their mates in the media to create stories about him as he was trying to curtail the legal expense gravy train.

Jurgen The German

One of the most startling things was that the government asked the industry to help fund anti fraud work by AGS. The industry players agreed only to then be told that the government changed their mind. Dodgy as fook.

tedpan

At least she got a free bag for life out this...

marieholmfan

Cork Trucker wrote: »

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.

That's barratry

ohnonotgmail

marieholmfan wrote: »

That's barratry

that is champerty. Barratry is the bringing of vexatious or groundless litigation. which coincidentally enough applies to this case.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Jurgen The German wrote: »

I was at a fraud conference this morning and Chief Justice Frank Clarke was one of the speakers. He discussed insurance reforms in terms of recalibration of personal injury awards. Those responsible for leading said recalibration have been identified and will commence the task shortly. It obviously wont be an over night fix but public opinion has reached the tipping point. A poll that was conducted of people that dont work either in insurance or law indicated that circa 80% of people want to see dramatic cuts made to compo awards, by 50% or more. The intention is to benchmark awards against those given in comparable economies like the UK, France, Italy and Germany.

It will take time for it to filter down but the right noises are being made at least.

I believe this to be true. I always made an effort to be open-minded about compensation cases but there’s been a few recently that are every bit as bad as the headline. What soured me too is that I have an acquaintance who lost a case this year over a delayed cancer diagnosis that has ultimately cost her her life. She simply couldn’t prove what the doctors said to her. It was she said, he said. Young children left behind. Not a penny. She didn’t want much. Just a small nest egg for her soon-to-be motherless children. And then you see a case of somebody getting a huge payout because a small amount of soup spilled on them and didn’t even scar them. Where is the justice here?

marieholmfan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is champerty. Barratry is the bringing of vexatious or groundless litigation. which coincidentally enough applies to this case.

Thanks for the correction.

walshb

Mother of sufferin' divine jaysus...

Bailey and swing-gate are in the ha'penny place compared to this absolute chancer...

Seriously, it's the legal eagles here who need serious challenging on this......

marieholmfan

walshb wrote: »

Mother of sufferin' divine jaysus...

Bailey and swing-gate are in the ha'penny place compared to this absolute chancer...

Seriously, it's the legal eagles here who need serious challenging on this......

This woman's a cleaner and Bailey is a TD.
That's a significant difference.