Harney Gets €450K Libel Payout

walshb · 05-05-2011 11:30AM

easyeason3 wrote: »

I would agree with you if she donated all of the money to a charity. She's hardly short of a few euro.

However if she persued this purely for financial gain rather than making a point that her name was sullied then I hope she has no luck with the money.

But didn't I see in the article that she donated to a hospital in Dublin? Peamount hospital?

Regardless of what she does with the money, it's the principle that is important.

Biggins · 05-05-2011 11:32AM

Contra Proferentem wrote: »

The Courts can "lift the corporate veil" in cases where companies re-name themselves to avoid prosecution or legal action. I'm sure that your solicitor (I assume you engaged one to handle the PIAB process) would have looked at that already though.

I'd be interested in seeing how the PIAB route works out. As a student I've been led to the view to rely on them a lot rather than repudiate the process and challenge the award.

No doubt the ability to access legal advice and representation is a problem for the general public, especially in civil matters like this. There is the stereotypical image of the scumbag constantly claiming free legal aid that needs to be wiped from the public psyche.

We have and indeed your right as to the rest of what you say.
If I think of it (me have memory like a dope sometimes) I'll keep you posted as to any outcome.
It looks like its still going to be a while, a long while though.

sensibleken · 05-05-2011 11:33AM

<snip>

Speculation not welcome.

WindSock · 05-05-2011 11:33AM

User Friendly wrote: »

ahh no....... not allowed to do that. broadcasting an all that.

There's barely enough air time as it is. Everytime I switch the station on its ads. Even if I switch it on a few minutes earlier or later.

Biggins · 05-05-2011 11:34AM

WindSock wrote: »

There's barely enough air time as it is. Everytime I switch the station on its ads. Even if I switch it on a few minutes earlier or later.

Agreed.
Thats partly why I like BBC radio a lot more.
...But thats another thread/topic.

steddyeddy · 05-05-2011 11:35AM

Contra Proferentem wrote: »

The Courts can "lift the corporate veil" in cases where companies re-name themselves to avoid prosecution or legal action. I'm sure that your solicitor (I assume you engaged one to handle the PIAB process) would have looked at that already though.

I'd be interested in seeing how the PIAB route works out. As a student I've been led to the view to rely on them a lot rather than repudiate the process and challenge the award.

No doubt the ability to access legal advice and representation is a problem for the general public, especially in civil matters like this. There is the stereotypical image of the scumbag constantly claiming free legal aid that needs to be wiped from the public psyche.

I agree totally ignorance seems to play a central part in how people label scumbags.

easyeason3 · 05-05-2011 11:36AM

walshb wrote: »

But didn't I see in the article that she donated to a hospital in Dublin? Peamount hospital?

Regardless of what she does with the money, it's the principle that is important.

Did she donate all of it?
Yes it is the principle that is important & if that was her sole reason for persuing the claim then donating the money wouldn't be an issue for her.

Contra Proferentem · 05-05-2011 11:36AM

Biggins wrote: »

We have and indeed your right as to the rest of what you say.
If I think of it (me have memory like a dope sometimes) I'll keep you posted as to any outcome.
It looks like its still going to be a while, a long while though.

In an ideal case, it's said to take at least six months.

The other option was foregoing the PIAB route and entering court. It costs more, but the rewards are potentially greater. Sadly even with water-tight cases there's always a risk factor there that people tend to avoid, and as you've pointed out, good counsel isn't cheap.

I think perhaps we need more campaigning professionals like they have in the US who take cases on principle, like the Erin Brockovich story. If I ever make it through, that'll be something I, at least, hope to do.

dr.bollocko · 05-05-2011 11:36AM

Mod: Speculation and dumb assed "fat" jokes do not add anything to the discussion.
If you feel the urge to make either please yell out your window or write out on some toilet roll and try making it into a paper plane in preference to posting it here.

suicide_circus · 05-05-2011 11:37AM

This is an outrage, Mary harney is clearly a model of moderation!
However, having waited at functions both Mary and nell have been at (separate occasions) I can tell you both of them know how to put away the sauce.

Cavehill Red · 05-05-2011 11:39AM

snubbleste wrote: »

Er..the case was settled out of court.
Dunno if she'd have got more in a jury situation, most people would've interaction with the Health Services, she's not the most popular woman on the planet.

Harney gets
An annual ministerial pension of about €69,200,
A TD's pension of around €50,600 per year
A pension lump sum of around €160,000
A termination lump sum of around €17,000
And a year of monthly termination payments from the Oireachtas worth another €66,900.

I can only iterate my disgust at this ridiculous libel payout, and repeat my long-held opinion that in her character and in her actions Mary Harney continues to epitomise everything that is wrong about Ireland.

MagicSean · 05-05-2011 11:40AM

Predalien wrote: »

And they tend to award rich people considerably more for defamation, seems a wealthy person's reputation is more important than normal folk.

Another poster has said it would have prevented her from taking up directorships and such, I think the incredible mess she made of the health service would be a far bigger reason for her being less employable.

The more famous you are the more damage is likely to be done by a defamation.

Biggins · 05-05-2011 11:40AM

k_mac wrote: »

The more famous you are the more damage is likely to be done by a defamation.

True.

Gophur · 05-05-2011 11:41AM

walshb wrote: »

Fair play to her. She stood up for herself and was vindicated. Might put bloody manners on these people who think they can go around sullying other persons' names

But it is NEWSTALK who have to pay for Nell McCafferty's insult, one of the unfair aspects of this Law/ Nell has lost nothing, apart from any fees she might have earned from those broadcasters foolish enough to think she was worth having on air.

The award was/is ridiculous.

One would wonder if the allegation was that she ate too much, would she have instigated action?

orourkeda · 05-05-2011 11:43AM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

"Anyone else" wouldn't have been awarded that much money though.

why not?

Biggins · 05-05-2011 11:46AM

Gophur wrote: »

...One would wonder if the allegation was that she ate too much, would she have instigated action?

The current outcome is that Newstalk is having to eat for a while, one expensive 'humble pie'.

the groutch · 05-05-2011 11:46AM

Gophur wrote: »

One would wonder if the allegation was that she ate too much, would she have instigated action?

no, because to be libelous, it has to be false

heyheyhey1982 · 05-05-2011 11:48AM

In fairness Newstalk where asleep at the wheel on that one- all they had to do was press the dump button- sorted. They let it go out and Nell kept digging a hole. I dont like Harney one bit- but you cant say she's an Alco on Radio and expect her to accept it. Although if Newstalk could of proved she was fond of an aul short would they have to pay her compo? 450k is a bit much too, its was a stupd remark but for 450k???

Also Nell Mc is an experienced journo- what was she thinking when she made the remark. I remember when i heard it i felt it was very personal and she didnt have time for Harney.

Contra Proferentem · 05-05-2011 11:50AM

Nell didn't know she was live when she made the comments

http://www.thejournal.ie/mccafferty-didnt-know-she-was-live-when-making-harney-comments-131461-May2011/

orourkeda · 05-05-2011 11:51AM

Gophur wrote: »

But it is NEWSTALK who have to pay for Nell McCafferty's insult, one of the unfair aspects of this Law/ Nell has lost nothing, apart from any fees she might have earned from those broadcasters foolish enough to think she was worth having on air.

The award was/is ridiculous.

One would wonder if the allegation was that she ate too much, would she have instigated action?

Libel laws are notorious. Awards like these are the reason why.

A counter argument could be that Newstalk was the platform on which a statement was made causing right thinking members of the irish public to see Mary Harney in a different and less flattering light.

These statements have consequences, especially when known or suspected to be untrue. On this basis Mary Harney was perfectly entitled to take the action she did. It's one thing to dislike her politics or to have problems with with her performance as a minister. Its another matter entirely to make personal attacks of this nature. Nell McCafferty should have known better given her background as a journalist.

orourkeda · 05-05-2011 11:53AM

Contra Proferentem wrote: »

Nell didn't know she was live when she made the comments

http://www.thejournal.ie/mccafferty-didnt-know-she-was-live-when-making-harney-comments-131461-May2011/

Like any broadcaster will tell you, you have to assume that every mic is open. Someone took their eye off the ball here

MagicSean · 05-05-2011 11:54AM

heyheyhey1982 wrote: »

In fairness Newstalk where asleep at the wheel on that one- all they had to do was press the dump button- sorted. They let it go out and Nell kept digging a hole. I dont like Harney one bit- but you cant say she's an Alco on Radio and expect her to accept it. Although if Newstalk could of proved she was fond of an aul short would they have to pay her compo? 450k is a bit much too, its was a stupd remark but for 450k???

Also Nell Mc is an experienced journo- what was she thinking when she made the remark. I remember when i heard it i felt it was very personal and she didnt have time for Harney.

I once sold her a bottle of wine in an off licence. Wasn't even strong wine. And it was a weekend. Didn't seem very alcoholic back then. Only saw her once in three years there and I worked in her local offy.

snubbleste · 05-05-2011 11:59AM

k_mac wrote: »

I once sold her a bottle of wine in an off licence. Wasn't even strong wine. And it was a weekend. Didn't seem very alcoholic back then. Only saw her once in three years there and I worked in her local offy.

She would'nt be going to her local, she'd want to be getting the helicopter to one further afield, say Leitrim or somewhere.

steddyeddy · 05-05-2011 12:00PM

k_mac wrote: »

The more famous you are the more damage is likely to be done by a defamation.

I think the court should have taken into consideration damage done to her reputation already such as miss use of expenses and incompetence in government. Having said that newstalk shouldnt get away with that but 450k is a crime.

orourkeda · 05-05-2011 12:04PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the court should have taken into consideration damage done to her reputation already such as miss use of expenses and incompetence in government. Having said that newstalk shouldnt get away with that but 450k is a crime.

why? the case had nothing to with expenses.

everyone has skeletons in their wardrobe. they dont need to be brought up every time we enter a court room

Biggins · 05-05-2011 12:08PM

orourkeda wrote: »

why? the case had nothing to with expenses.

everyone has skeletons in their wardrobe. they dont need to be brought up every time we enter a court room

Indeed.
If that was the case, every time Bertie would enter a court room, it might be instantly packed! :pac:

orourkeda · 05-05-2011 12:10PM

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed.
If that was the case, every time Bertie would enter a court room, it might be instantly packed! :pac:

and a police van waiting outside maybe

Biggins · 05-05-2011 12:12PM

orourkeda wrote: »

and a police van waiting outside maybe

...If only!

orourkeda · 05-05-2011 12:13PM

Biggins wrote: »

...If only!

Indeed.

steddyeddy · 05-05-2011 12:16PM

orourkeda wrote: »

why? the case had nothing to with expenses.

everyone has skeletons in their wardrobe. they dont need to be brought up every time we enter a court room

Well the first part was a joke all the same I wouldnt say she has a positive reputation to damage. The 450k was a joke though considering people like biggins often get far less.

Harney Gets €450K Libel Payout

Comments