Man gets €20k for jambon embarrassment

I'm usually disgusted at sizeable compensation claims for trivial even ridiculous matters however in this instance I think the shop deserved it. They ignored 6 letters from the guys solicitor and so screw them. If they had the decency to reply even to deny the incident then I think there would have been a very different result.

I read this as "jamrag" ....now that would be embarrassing lol lol

suicide_circus wrote: »

People make claims
Solicitors get hired
Judges award compo
The gravy train continues.

That sounds like The Field

colm_mcm wrote: »

Can't see why jambon man should get the 20k though.
If the shop did something wrong in not responding, is there not another way the judge can deal with that?
All this does is encourage scams and makes retailers war on scobes robbing stuff harder.

You have to remember that the judge was possibly a member of the legal profession before being appointed a judge, he knows what it's like to have legal letters ignored and he punished them for it. I think he was right. It doesn't encourage fraudulent claims but may encourage businesses to settle silly little matters like it before they reach court stage.

Accusing the poor man of eating a jambon. The shame.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Doesn't take much these days for someone to be able to jambon the compensation bandwagon.

It's called slander Pete, you can't come running out of a shop accusing someone of stealing when they paid for the item. €20k is a bit much though.

bucketybuck wrote: »

What legal requirement is there to respond to random letters from a solicitor? Is a letter from a solicitor a legal document? If the shop felt the mans claims were frivolous why should they waste their time responding to what they may have felt was correspondence from some ambulance chaser?

Unless I am wrong the shop responded immediately to contact from the court, is that not how it should be?

No I don't think there is any legal requirement but as they ignored 6 letters and you can be absolutely sure the solicitors informed them if they didn't respond they'd issue legal proceedings so to continue to ignore those letters was at their own peril and they paid a hefty price for it. If they had replied then I think the case would have been thrown out or would have at least resulted in a much small award.

blue note wrote: »

Where's your line for what you regard as begrudgery and what you regard as reasonable criticism of a ridiculous award?

In fairness, the post just before the one you quoted (and possibly very much the comment that prompted them to post at all) said that the man should be sued for starting a frivolous lawsuit.

colm_mcm wrote: »

Can't see why jambon man should get the 20k though.
If the shop did something wrong in not responding, is there not another way the judge can deal with that?
All this does is encourage scams and makes retailers war on scobes robbing stuff harder.

I saw this thread and was thinking, wow, 20k, mad, but it seems fairly clear after reading that the guy was defamed, his reputation is worth more than the cost of the item he purchased.
In my experience, Centra are/appear fairly shoddy with their staff training, prices not ringing up on the till as they are advertised (routine overcharging) or giving out receipts unless you ask for them, and then they only seem to be doing it grudgingly as if you are some kind of inconveneience. I still have felt a certain awkwardness asking for receipts when I shouldn't have to ask, mostly I do it due to the problem with them charging incorrectly, but know I could be accused of theft without one even if I pay.
It doesn't suprise me one bit reading this, they'd have covered themselves had they simply given a receipt and asked him for proof of purchase in a sensible and discreet way, they know they don't hand out receipts as a matter of routine practice.

Yawns wrote: »

I don't agree with the payout either. Punish the shop for letting it get to that stage sure. Make them pay legal costs, possibly a small compensation to the guy of what 500 euro maybe. Charity would be better. 20k tho? No way.

The penalty for defamation is much more than 500 euro, I think it starts around 15k, and why should it go to a charity? would you be happy for someone to accuse you falsely in earshot of others that may know you or who may decline to have dealings with you because of a false statement or accusation? his reputation may be irreversibly tarnished and that could affect him in numerous ways. I consider I have been defamed in the past a number of times and I let it go, In hindsight I shouldn't have, its a serious matter and as Im not a criminal, Id take it very seriously if I was ever defamed again myself.

blue note wrote: »

Are you serious? I do agree that the guy deserved an apology and probably a token gift or something - give him a bottle of wine or a box of chocolates or something to say sorry for our mistake. Then for ignoring the solicitor's letters and the hassle of it all the shop deserved to be punished and the man compensated for the original mistake and the hassle of chasing them for it. A thousand euro plus costs would have thought the shop a lesson and been a nice little windfall for the customer.

But how the hell did we get to twenty thousand euro?!? That's just insane. Where's your line for what you regard as begrudgery and what you regard as reasonable criticism of a ridiculous award? If they awarded him 50 or 100 thousand would it still just be begrudgery if people gave out about it?

He was called a thief, embarrased infront of people. When Ireland declared itself independant the people at the time decided to enumerate the right to a good name. This guys rghts were breached in a very serious way and you reckon it's worth a bottle of wine?

You and I were not party to the case we have no basis to cricise the award other than our own assuptions. Assumptions that given the usual way these threads go aren't grounded in relaity.

robinph wrote: »

Not that the article can be taken as an accurate transcript of what was said or done, but from Jambon mans evidence the shop staff were only querying if he'd paid or not. Jambon man was the one that then brought up denials of being a thief and therefore escalated the situation. He didn't even claim that the store was calling him a thief, they were only trying to confirm if he'd paid or not. Subtle difference, but I don't see that the shop were accusing him of stuffing items down his jumper and trying to sneak out, as a thief, merely that he'd neglected to pay.

That still defmation, it still could have been handled compeltely differently. The qunatum of the award is potentially up for debate given simialr cases, although without reading the case it's difficult to know. It's certainly not outrageous or even thead worthy; it's only become so becuase of the twisted sense of begrudary that exists with 'compo' claims. If it wasn't the OP would have started a thread in legal discussions and asked about whther this was usual and would have got a non-sensationalist answer.