Supreme Court Judgment

blackwhite · 10-10-2014 06:12PM

cairny wrote: »

General insurance won't cover defamation, in general it covers accidental injury or damage only (some defamation can be covered in shop policies but very limited and only for accidental incorrect allegations of shoplifting)

Case wasn't dismissed on this basis as he sued the comp sec and others individually as well, I presume the club and or GUI were going to indemnify the individuals, if they didn't then clubs would have trouble filling these positions.

It's not an abuse of process though, any citizen is entitled to take a case and entitled to appeal the result of a decision up to Supreme Court level. The defence probably did try to get it dismissed as frivolous earlier but failed, pretty hard to do for obvious reasons.

The GUI cannot get such a waiver, all citizens have a constitutional right to a good name and the right to protect it.

Case has done a lot of damage, huge financials costs in defending it and unquantifiable damage in scaring the bejaysus out of comp secs thinking off cutting the local troublemaker.

You can get Directors and Officers insurance which would be generally cover a business for being sued in circumstances where the actions of an officer resulted in them being sued.
However I have no idea if any insurer offers a similar type of policy to clubs to cover them in a similar way.

John Divney · 10-10-2014 06:47PM

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/simple-case-takes-83-days-of-court-time-30653373.html

Seems this 83 days for a 'simple case' has not been lost on the Chief Justice, what a waste of court time.

cairny · 10-10-2014 07:33PM

blackwhite wrote: »

You can get Directors and Officers insurance which would be generally cover a business for being sued in circumstances where the actions of an officer resulted in them being sued.
However I have no idea if any insurer offers a similar type of policy to clubs to cover them in a similar way.

Came across this only once and it was a US Insurer, very hard to get, loads of conditions and very expensive. Probably not viable for a sports club. Usually organisations with big turnovers, eg Credit Union etc.

cairny · 10-10-2014 08:09PM

John Divney wrote: »

Cheers, so the case was never really about the Heritage, and had to be heard against the individual and the GUI.

The appeal has to be a point of law or just a general right as it was a Constitutional and Tort case?

Is there an amateur sports insurance that does cover defamation by members of associations?

Could the defendants get security for costs to discourage the whole thing when he couldn't afford to lose so kept going?

There's (more or less) an automatic right of appeal to Supreme Court from High Court decisions.

I think there is some process for getting the security you refer to but that it's very very rarely granted. When you think about it there's a good reason as it would discriminate in favour of those who with means against those without. Leads to galling outcomes alright though.

John Divney · 10-10-2014 09:35PM

cairny wrote: »

There's (more or less) an automatic right of appeal to Supreme Court from High Court decisions.

I think there is some process for getting the security you refer to but that it's very very rarely granted. When you think about it there's a good reason as it would discriminate in favour of those who with means against those without. Leads to galling outcomes alright though.

Yeah I was thinking it would be rare with deep pocket corporations etc, but in a scenario where say the legal costs (could argue it anyway) would shut the club down, as voluntary association, and the man was called a 'serial litagent by a High court judge, the club not even directly liable under law, there would be an application for it at least to protect the associations, particularly on such a risky claim that the man would appeal knowing he couldn't pay and never let it go.

Miley Byrne · 10-10-2014 11:46PM

John Divney wrote: »

Cheers, so the case was never really about the Heritage, and had to be heard against the individual and the GUI.

You might want to edit that to Hermitage John

(In case of more litigation!!!):D

blackwhite · 12-10-2014 12:49AM

cairny wrote: »

Came across this only once and it was a US Insurer, very hard to get, loads of conditions and very expensive. Probably not viable for a sports club. Usually organisations with big turnovers, eg Credit Union etc.

It's standard insurance for any large business. Fairly common and not actually that expensive at all. In my work we have had it place for years, and its always a fairly competitive renewal

I'm not aware if there's an equivalent for that would cover non-commercial entities, but I'd imagine it'd be difficult to get cover for volunteer positions like handicap sec

Bepolite · 12-10-2014 12:51AM

I'm finding a way to put this into one of my law exams! :pac:

cairny · 12-10-2014 01:02AM

blackwhite wrote: »

It's standard insurance for any large business. Fairly common and not actually that expensive at all. In my work we have had it place for years, and its always a fairly competitive renewal

I'm not aware if there's an equivalent for that would cover non-commercial entities, but I'd imagine it'd be difficult to get cover for volunteer positions like handicap sec

Sorry I should have clarified that I was referring to voluntary or non professional organisations, ie not directors or professional indemnity insurance which as you say is very standard.

Manach · 12-10-2014 11:32AM

Just a pity for all parties it came to this, given the resources it took to resolve. There is an old saying, the law does not concern itself over a match's coin toss: so perhaps if the plaintiff had sought advice before moving forward with this he might have been better off to resolve it outside the legal system.

John Divney · 12-10-2014 07:03PM

Manach wrote: »

Just a pity for all parties it came to this, given the resources it took to resolve. There is an old saying, the law does not concern itself over a match's coin toss: so perhaps if the plaintiff had sought advice before moving forward with this he might have been better off to resolve it outside the legal system.

The plaintiff was described as a 'serial litigant' and 'irrational' in his claims in court by a High Court Judge in on of his other cases.

He wasn't after advice, he had to know he would lose and rack up the fees, and not have a hope of paying costs, so he went on to the Supreme Court in a billion to one hail Mary and rack up more fees.

The Court System was shown to be very inefficent on this one, 83 days wasted on a simple matter of law. The public and the Defendants here got screwed needlessly.

Raisins · 16-10-2014 01:32AM

abff wrote: »

The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish. The only winners were the lawyers who stacked up huge fees. If only they would change the law so that lawyers who took on spurious and vexatious claims had to pay the other side's costs. That would put a stop to their gallop. Can't see it happening though.

I would agree that the only winners were the lawyers for the GUI but he was a lay litigant. I'm sure that proposal would work wonders for the rights of people to access the Courts. What gallop? You think lawyers make money from spurious and vexations claims?

GreeBo wrote: »

The gui didn't though, so the point stands.

How on earth could the point that the lawyers for the GUI should pay the costs still stand?

abff · 18-10-2014 10:16AM

John Divney wrote: »

The plaintiff was described as a 'serial litigant' and 'irrational' in his claims in court by a High Court Judge in on of his other cases.

He wasn't after advice, he had to know he would lose and rack up the fees, and not have a hope of paying costs, so he went on to the Supreme Court in a billion to one hail Mary and rack up more fees.

The Court System was shown to be very inefficent on this one, 83 days wasted on a simple matter of law. The public and the Defendants here got screwed needlessly.

How did it take 83 days to deal with this? Mind boggling doesn't begin to describe it. I know that everyone should be entitled to due process, but there's something very wrong with the system when a matter like this can take that long to deal with in court.

abff · 18-10-2014 10:21AM

Some further background on the litigant. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lovers-united-after-three-decades-apart-now-fight-over-house-26456671.html

brick tamland · 18-10-2014 11:01AM

He must really enjoy being in the High Court

Dr_Colossus · 22-10-2014 01:17PM

Update in today's paper, the plaintiff had costs awarded against him, estimated to be in the region of €500k.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/pensioner-who-lost-case-about-golf-handicap-faces-legal-costs-of-500-000-1.1971762

Supreme Court Judgment

Comments