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

minor wrongfully accused shoplifting? any thoughts?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    I've seen €5000 awarded (x2) against a business I used to work for, when a security guard pursued two teenage girls down the street in Limerick after he thought they had lifted something.
    That's quite different to this situation.
    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I am talking about we are not going to serve you because you caused trouble before situation,
    Would you like to quote some references for the cases that involved this kind of situation - the cases would be in the public domain, right?


  • #33
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    RainyDay wrote: »
    That's quite different to this situation.

    It is. No one ever accused the girls of stealing. These lads were.


  • #34
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    The Mustard wrote: »
    Looking at ResearchWill's given range of damages, this could create a tricky jurisdictional situation with regard to costs. If you bring proceedings in the Circuit Court with a jurisdiction of €6,348.69 to €38,092.14, and if you get an award of €4k, the general rule is that costs will be awarded against you. Given that risk, it can be safer to issue in the District Court, depending on the circumstances, but in that event, damages will be capped at €6,348.69, being the max jurisdiction of the District Court. This could create a tricky situation, and full careful consideration of all circumstances must be given.

    Also, even though there are many solicitors who would take these cases on a no foal no fee basis, there are quite a few solicitors and counsel who like to ensure that their costs will be secured in advance in relation to these types of cases.

    You get plaintiffs who are hell bent on pursuing weak cases when they believe that it will not cost them anything. Obviously, there is the risk of costs against the plaintiff, but then again, if there is a next friend who is the mother of an aggrieved child plaintiff, which mother only has a modest income from social welfare, then the risk of having to pay costs may not be the deterrent that one might think.

    These types of shop slander cases are usually not as straighforward as your average RTA rear ending.

    Section 41 Defamation Act 2009, is important in relation to Jurisdiction. You can only brin Defamation Action in the High Court or in The Circuit Court where that court then will have jurisdiction upto €50,000, you can not bring such an Action in the District Court, if you are awarded €3,000 in the Circuot Court you are entitled to Circuit Court costs.


  • #35
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    RainyDay wrote: »
    That's quite different to this situation.


    Would you like to quote some references for the cases that involved this kind of situation - the cases would be in the public domain, right?

    As all the cases are in the Circuit Court there would be no written or reported decision, Defamation in the High Court which would produce reported judgements are for cases valued at more than €50,000. But I can assure you of the veracity of the cases as I was involved in them.

    Some of the cases settled some ran to hearing.


  • #36
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    It is. No one ever accused the girls of stealing. These lads were.
    Actually, they weren't accused of stealing, and that kind of sloppy assumption is exactly what will get somebody in big trouble if they were to proceed with a case. The lads were removed from the shop, on the basis that the shop owner believed they had shoplifted on a previous occasion. That is quite different from a direct accusation of shoplifting that occurred in the three reported cases.
    ResearchWill wrote: »
    As all the cases are in the Circuit Court there would be no written or reported decision, Defamation in the High Court which would produce reported judgements are for cases valued at more than €50,000. But I can assure you of the veracity of the cases as I was involved in them.

    Some of the cases settled some ran to hearing.

    What a pity there is no public report of the relevant cases, particularly given that these cases were held in the public domain, and many such Circuit Court cases would be widely reported in the press. In all fairness, it would be fairly foolish for someone to make a decision to proceed with a legal case that could expose them to significant costs based on an unsubstantiated report from an anonymous poster.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Section 41 Defamation Act 2009, is important in relation to Jurisdiction. You can only brin Defamation Action in the High Court or in The Circuit Court where that court then will have jurisdiction upto €50,000, you can not bring such an Action in the District Court, if you are awarded €3,000 in the Circuot Court you are entitled to Circuit Court costs.

    Very good. I don't know what I was talking about - defamation in the District Court.


  • #38
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Actually, they weren't accused of stealing, and that kind of sloppy assumption is exactly what will get somebody in big trouble if they were to proceed with a case. The lads were removed from the shop, on the basis that the shop owner believed they had shoplifted on a previous occasion. That is quite different from a direct accusation of shoplifting that occurred in the three reported cases.



    What a pity there is no public report of the relevant cases, particularly given that these cases were held in the public domain, and many such Circuit Court cases would be widely reported in the press. In all fairness, it would be fairly foolish for someone to make a decision to proceed with a legal case that could expose them to significant costs based on an unsubstantiated report from an anonymous poster.

    There have been cases where nothing has been said that succeeded in defamation. A defamation can be implied. In fact case have been brought where would you believe it the store alarm went off (I personally think that is a bit much but depends on the situation)

    But so as we are clear here s the OP

    "my 15 year old son and four of his friends had went to the city centre to do some sales shopping , and went into the shop in question to get a drink , and upon entering the manager approached my son and his friends and swiped the purchase's from my sons hand and told them they were to get the f&*% out of the shop that they were caught shoplifting in the shop a week before Christmas ? ,, which was impossible as he was in London up till Christmas eve and either way wouldn't ever even think about stealing anything form anyone!!"

    In relation to what the circuit court will do I refer to an earlier post of mine,

    "That is advice a solicitor can give, knowing the local Circuit Court Judges etc., many people take on the risk, it's the same with any legal action. As I said the awards for pure defamation in these type situations are 2,500 to 10,000."

    No one should take any legal action with out first getting real legal advice, btw I have not said the OP should take legal action, that is for the OP and his legal advisor.


  • #39
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Actually, they weren't accused of stealing, and that kind of sloppy assumption is exactly what will get somebody in big trouble if they were to proceed with a case. The lads were removed from the shop, on the basis that the shop owner believed they had shoplifted on a previous occasion. That is quite different from a direct accusation of shoplifting that occurred in the three reported cases.
    SAM75 wrote: »
    upon entering the manager approached my son and his friends and swiped the purchase's from my sons hand and told them they were to get the f&*% out of the shop that they were caught shoplifting in the shop a week before Christmas

    I'm confused - please point out my sloppy.


  • #40
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    I'm confused - please point out my sloppy.

    They weren't accused of stealing. He didn't detain them in the shop and call the Gardai. He threw them out of the shop. It's a different league to the other cases reported on this thread.


  • #41
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    RainyDay wrote: »
    They weren't accused of stealing. He didn't detain them in the shop and call the Gardai. He threw them out of the shop. It's a different league to the other cases reported on this thread.

    It really isn't. A fact that has been pointed out to you by people far more knowledgeable than myself. If he had thrown them out of the shop by saying 'Get out' then that's one thing. If you read the OP you'll see he accused them of stealing as a justification for doing so.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement