Would someone explain this

Brendan Bendar · 10-12-2019 04:41PM #1

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/couple-loses-defamation-claim-against-dublin-restaurant-whose-staff-asked-them-to-pay-dinner-bill-969365.html

Just reading this and wondering what’s the read?

How could someone pop a 75k claim for an incident like that?

Would it be a no foal no fee basis?

Who would pay costs in events like this as there obviously were costs?

Given the huge insurance problems we now have surely should there not be better control over stuff like this.

Not suggesting anything about the folk involved here, but can one kind of take a ‘ punt’ in situations like this and see how it pans out without any risk.

Seems very strange to me, I have to admit.

yermandan · 10-12-2019 04:44PM

Jesus wept, imagine paying for yer dinner. The country is f*cked when this is the type of case that gets in front of a judge

Irishphotodesk · 10-12-2019 04:48PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/couple-loses-defamation-claim-against-dublin-restaurant-whose-staff-asked-them-to-pay-dinner-bill-969365.html

Just reading this and wondering what’s the read?

How could someone pop a 75k claim for an incident like that?

Would it be a no foal no fee basis?

Who would pay costs in events like this as there obviously were costs?

Given the huge insurance problems we now have surely should there not be better control over stuff like this.

Not suggesting anything about the folk involved here, but can one kind of take a ‘ punt’ in situations like this and see how it pans out without any risk.

Seems very strange to me, I have to admit.

Most likely no foal/fee etc,

My understanding is that they felt that the waitress should have waited until they returned to their table before passing the bill to them, and that the manager on duty made derogatory comments.

In general those that loose the case pay the costs, but that's for the legals to argue, costs generally follow the verdict in civil actions.

The €75k is the maximum that could be awarded - most cases in the civil court do not obtain a maximum.

SEPT 23 1989 · 10-12-2019 04:55PM

no mention of Mr Constitution Hill's occupation

Fr_Dougal · 10-12-2019 04:56PM

No win/no fee is actually illegal in Ireland, but there are some unscrupulous solicitors who make arrangements with their clients.

Deebles McBeebles · 10-12-2019 04:58PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

no mention of Mr Constitution Hill's occupation

You know right well its full-time mad bastard.

Dial Hard · 10-12-2019 05:08PM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

No win/no fee is actually illegal in Ireland, but there are some unscrupulous solicitors who make arrangements with their clients.

It's perfectly legal, they just can't advertise it.

Brendan Bendar · 10-12-2019 05:12PM

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Most likely no foal/fee etc,

My understanding is that they felt that the waitress should have waited until they returned to their table before passing the bill to them, and that the manager on duty made derogatory comments.

In general those that loose the case pay the costs, but that's for the legals to argue, costs generally follow the verdict in civil actions.

The €75k is the maximum that could be awarded - most cases in the civil court do not obtain a maximum.

Thanks for that.

What still gets me is that ‘incidents’ like this attract such reactions.

Would it be up to the legals to one one side or another to be cost liable?

Seems a huge event over a €30 euro bill

Judge seems to have sided with the ‘house’

Would the taxpayer be stiffed in situations like this?

ohnonotgmail · 10-12-2019 05:27PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thanks for that.

What still gets me is that ‘incidents’ like this attract such reactions.

Would it be up to the legals to one one side or another to be cost liable?

Seems a huge event over a €30 euro bill

Judge seems to have sided with the ‘house’

The judge sided with common sense.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Would the taxpayer be stiffed in situations like this?

no.

pgj2015 · 10-12-2019 07:25PM

You would know to look at them what your dealing with, you will find its not their first time looking for money for nothing.

I wouldn't like to be the red heads employer, someone like that will sue you over any little thing.

andekwarhola · 10-12-2019 07:28PM

Should have awarded costs against the idiots.

Fair enough they probably weren't going anywhere with their belongings at the table but most people would have perfectly OK if the manager had given a polite explanation like in this case.

Mervyn Skidmore · 10-12-2019 07:28PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The judge sided with common sense.

no.

Well the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the courts, judiciary, courts staff etc.

Charlie19 · 10-12-2019 07:35PM

I can see their argument but ffs 75k, I'd been happy with an apology or a packet of scampi fries.

buried · 10-12-2019 07:38PM

The likes of these two would probably try sue their own bathtub if they slipped out of it

andekwarhola · 10-12-2019 07:41PM

Charlie19 wrote: »

I can see their argument but ffs 75k, I'd been happy with an apology or a packet of scampi fries.

They don't really have an argument. If I was eating with somebody, we'd never both leave the building without paying even to have a smoke.

pgj2015 · 10-12-2019 07:47PM

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

Well the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the courts, judiciary, courts staff etc.

who cares, as long as those two wasters dont get a penny its tax payers money well spent.

Del2005 · 10-12-2019 07:52PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Would the taxpayer be stiffed in situations like this?

Yes. We have to pay for the court time that was used and businesses will need to increase prices to cover their legal costs for spurious claims even if they win. No repercussions for the people making spurious claims like this means that everyone pays.

Brendan Bendar · 10-12-2019 07:58PM

Del2005 wrote: »

Yes. We have to pay for the court time that was used and businesses will need to increase prices to cover their legal costs for spurious claims even if they win. No repercussions for the people making spurious claims like this means that everyone pays.

Yep, that’s what I kinda thought.

Surely there should be some ‘deterrent ‘ to make people think a bit harder before launching serious actions .

andekwarhola · 10-12-2019 08:26PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Yep, that’s what I kinda thought.

Surely there should be some ‘deterrent ‘ to make people think a bit harder before launching serious actions .

Would be great to see costs routinely awarded against people like this but then again, I'm sure genuine people end up losing cases as well.

touts · 10-12-2019 09:12PM

Absolute chancers. You can bet the restaurant will still be facing a hefty bill for solicitors and barristers. The impact of this no win no fee culture is businesses will have to settle out of court or even on the night once the threat is issued.

yosser hughes · 10-12-2019 09:20PM

The press still won't name the solicitors names that are taking these cases. They name the defence solicitors and barristers, but not the plaintiff's.
Why not?

Simmer down · 10-12-2019 09:29PM

buried wrote: »

The likes of these two would probably try sue their own bathtub if they slipped out of it

And there's thousands out there just like them..
Until these type of chancers have to pay costs when they lose, they'll take a punt.
Nothing to lose, lots of free money to gain.

kirving · 10-12-2019 09:37PM

yosser hughes wrote: »

The press still won't name the solicitors names that are taking these cases. They name the defence solicitors and barristers, but not the plaintiff's.
Why not?

I like to think it's to prevent them getting free advertising.

seagull · 11-12-2019 03:16PM

I still think the best option is to give the judge the option of awarding costs against the plaintiff's solicitor in extreme taking-the-piss cases like this. If the solicitor stands to lose a good wodge of money, they might not be so keen to take a gamble on a case like this.

tayto lover · 11-12-2019 03:22PM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I like to think it's to prevent them getting free advertising.

Doubt that.
More like preserving their reputations so that they’re not abandoned by other clients after their shyt show in court.

ohnonotgmail · 11-12-2019 03:31PM

seagull wrote: »

I still think the best option is to give the judge the option of awarding costs against the plaintiff's solicitor in extreme taking-the-piss cases like this. If the solicitor stands to lose a good wodge of money, they might not be so keen to take a gamble on a case like this.

the judge already has that option. in this case they decided not to exercise it for reasons that are not immediately clear.

seagull · 11-12-2019 05:02PM

He can order costs against the plaintiffs. I'm proposing going a step further and making the solicitor pay costs if the plaintiff can't.

Brendan Bendar · 11-12-2019 06:08PM

seagull wrote: »

He can order costs against the plaintiffs. I'm proposing going a step further and making the solicitor pay costs if the plaintiff can't.

Yes, that was a judgement I wondered if it was available to the judge.

I feel it might contribute to lessening the numbers of what people might call ‘spurious cases’.

Vic_08 · 11-12-2019 07:46PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the judge already has that option. in this case they decided not to exercise it for reasons that are not immediately clear.

A real threat of having a financial cost to losing would put off future give-it-a-lash lawsuits which would reduce the revenue streams for the legal profession. Gotta protect the gravy train.

Your Face · 11-12-2019 07:46PM

"They had come back into the restaurant after having settled their bill with a €19 voucher and €11 in cash"

Pieces of ****.

AlekSmart · 11-12-2019 08:20PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Yes, that was a judgement I wondered if it was available to the judge.

I feel it might contribute to lessening the numbers of what people might call ‘spurious cases’.

It's currently not an available option.

However it WAS contained in one of the recent Law Reform reports about 2 years back.
Whilst it would have an immediate impact upon a significant number of potential cases,It did not seem to gain much traction amongst the Legal fraternity,which surprises me greatly... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Would someone explain this

Comments