Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

robertpatterson · 26-05-2015 11:01AM

seamus wrote: »

No, I don't think so. The comments of a single traveller in a court case wouldn't be that wide-reaching.

However, it might mean there is provision for hotels to include expensive security services as part of a wedding package, or ask for a five-figure security deposit for traveller weddings.

I can see how discrimination of this kind could be defensible by claiming that a traveller wedding is "high-risk" and therefore they're justified in asking for a large refundable deposit.

It was an expert on the connors side that said “fracas” as being “part and parcel of Traveller weddings”. not an individual traveller
What constitutes an expert in that regard ive no idea:eek:

26-05-2015 11:15AM

I wonder what would happen if someone outside of court was quoted as saying this stuff was part and parcel of traveller weddings.

keithclancy · 26-05-2015 11:18AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if someone outside of court was quoted as saying this stuff was part and parcel of traveller weddings.

Well really the person bringing the case is inferring this is the case by saying sufficient security should have been present due to the type of event.

goose2005 · 26-05-2015 11:24AM

whiskeyman wrote: »

I wonder if there's a market for novelty inflatable slashhooks, pitchforks etc... at these weddings...

Maybe in 100 years time it'll be part of wedding custom to have mock-traveller brawls at every wedding, just like in Romania where the grooms family "kidnap" the bride http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2197785/There-goes-bride-The-bizarre-Romanian-custom-staging-mock-kidnappings-weddings.html

El_Duderino 09 · 26-05-2015 11:26AM

If these fracas are part and parcel of a traveller wedding, is it OK to charge travellers more to host the wedding? Same question with damage deposit.

abff · 26-05-2015 07:36PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Expecting morals from lawyers? That's more naieve than the hotel owner!

Not at all. I was just expressing a wish that there was a system in place to punish them for taking on such cases.

abff · 26-05-2015 07:40PM

keeponhurling wrote: »

Eh, money ?

you can't really tell if it is frivolous until you've actually looked into the details

Fair enough. But looking into the details is one thing; actually going to court is another. And appealing it to a higher court is yet another.

While I know there's no way that the law is going to be changed to make lawyers liable for the other side's costs when they take on vexatious, frivolous cases, at the very least they could bring in a requirement that nothing would be paid to the losing side's lawyer in such cases until all the other side's costs have been discharged in full.

I know - it's not gonna happen. But I can dream, can't I?

Grayson · 26-05-2015 07:41PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

It'd be the opposite. If the judge had thought that there was a serious risk he might have found in favor of the traveler.

anncoates · 26-05-2015 07:44PM

It's terrible to see undercover racists yet again causing trouble at a traveler social event in order to discredit the community.

26-05-2015 07:53PM

abff wrote: »

If it was possible to put a system in place whereby any lawyer who agreed to take on a frivolous, vexatious case which was doomed to fail would become liable for paying the other side's costs, the number of such cases would fall dramatically.

This case was not dismissed for being frivolous or vexatious.

To make lawyers responsible for losing cases is ridiculous, like making doctors liable for patients who don't succeed in getting better. Of course they may be, if there is negligence, but not fir simply taking on a matter.

silverfeather · 26-05-2015 08:30PM

Why not just say man sues? What has his ethnic background got to do with it? 'Man Sues'.

SeanW · 26-05-2015 08:30PM

silverfeather wrote: »

Why not just say man sues? What has his ethnic background got to do with it? 'Man Sues'.

Sure. Conceal the key facts of the case, hide the cause and the explanation for the whole incident, just to serve some liberal leftist agenda.

silverfeather · 26-05-2015 08:32PM

SeanW wrote: »

Sure. Conceal the key facts of the case, hide the cause and the explanation for the whole incident, just to serve some liberal leftist agenda.

I am not taking that post seriously. No matter how much you protest. It's hilarious.

RayM · 26-05-2015 08:37PM

SeanW wrote: »

Sure. Conceal the key facts of the case, hide the cause and the explanation for the whole incident, just to serve some liberal leftist agenda.

A person's ethnic background is not a key fact.

26-05-2015 08:39PM

Except that the "ethnicity" of the guests, including the plaintiff, is a key part of the case since that is why there apparently should have been more security.

silverfeather · 26-05-2015 08:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that the "ethnicity" of the guests, including the plaintiff, is a key part of the case since that is why there apparently should have been more security.

The f*ckin Irish I tells ya..

His ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The hotel was vindicated and found not liable.

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

CatFromHue · 26-05-2015 08:56PM

Did the hotel have to pay costs?

What's amazing is that not only did this get to a court but was appealed to the high court!

The_Minister · 26-05-2015 08:59PM

silverfeather wrote: »

The f*ckin Irish I tells ya..

His ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The hotel was vindicated and found not liable.

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

A core part of his case was that traveller weddings are more violent than settled weddings, therefore the hotel should have had enhanced security.

The fact that he is a traveller is key to the whole matter.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-05-2015 08:59PM

RayM wrote: »

A person's ethnic background is not a key fact.

The traveller made his ethnicity part of the case. He got a security expert to testify that 'this type of fracas is part and parcel of a traveller wedding'.

SeanW · 26-05-2015 09:06PM

RayM wrote: »

A person's ethnic background is not a key fact.

Wedding receptions don't usually descend into mass riots. There would have to be a reason. Sure enough, the reports indicate the reason. Indeed, the reason why the reception descended into chaos was explained by the plaintiff as the key to his case.

silverfeather wrote: »

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

You should write for the Guardian.

Hans Bricks · 26-05-2015 09:11PM

silverfeather wrote: »

The f*ckin Irish I tells ya..

His ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The hotel was vindicated and found not liable.

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

Ever worked traveller weddings, functions, dealt with them in hospitality ?

Long be the days when I had to hold "500 euro notes" under the light at the hotel I worked in when they would buy a round of drinks at the guest bar. Lo and behold they were always counterfeit. Don't even get me started on the weddings ....

26-05-2015 09:14PM

The_Minister wrote: »

A core part of his case was that traveller weddings are more violent than settled weddings, therefore the hotel should have had enhanced security.

The fact that he is a traveller is key to the whole matter.

It may have been key to the decision by the Plaintiff to proceed.

Clearly it was not key to the decision.

The decision would have been the same had the victim been old, young, Irish, not Irish, traveller, not traveller, gay, straight or whatever. What the Plaintiff was obviously trying to do was to use his traveller status to suggest the duty of care increased, this was rejected.

Hans Bricks · 26-05-2015 09:17PM

The_Minister wrote: »

A core part of his case was that traveller weddings are more violent than settled weddings, therefore the hotel should have had enhanced security.

The fact that he is a traveller is key to the whole matter.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The traveller made his ethnicity part of the case. He got a security expert to testify that 'this type of fracas is part and parcel of a traveller wedding'.

Some people don't simply want to hear it. It ain't politically correct, so hush up and embrace the tummy warming diversity you've all been gifted in the form of riotous traveller functions.

homewardbound11 · 26-05-2015 09:31PM

I took to replying after taking the word traveller out of if and it seemed like a stupid case of suing culture in America .

Been in that hotel for a function found the family run business to be a lovely people . So sad.

26-05-2015 09:31PM

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Some people don't simply want to hear it. It ain't politically correct, so hush up and embrace the tummy warming diversity you've all been gifted in the form of riotous traveller functions.

Again, it was a core part of his case...but clearly not a core part of the decision.

This happens all the time. In many different cases. It was obviously fundamental to the case of the plaintiff, a particular duty of care existed because of the nature of the guests. The Judge rejected this.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-05-2015 09:45PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, it was a core part of his case...but clearly not a core part of the decision.

This happens all the time. In many different cases. It was obviously fundamental to the case of the plaintiff, a particular duty of care existed because of the nature of the guests. The Judge rejected this.

It was a core part of the case so it's relevant to mention.

I'm not any kind of expert but the element of a case which I find interesting are

The plaintiff's argument
The defence argument
The point of law being contested
The outcome.

end of the road · 26-05-2015 09:52PM

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

And they wonder why hotels won't take traveller weddings.

because the hotels can get away with it. shut a few of them down and bann the owners from holding any similar licences and we'l see then

Ficheall · 26-05-2015 09:56PM

silverfeather wrote: »

Why not just say man sues? What has his ethnic background got to do with it? 'Man Sues'.

What has his gender got to do with it?

end of the road · 26-05-2015 09:56PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

i wouldn't think so. discrimination laws still apply i should think

Massimo Cassagrande · 26-05-2015 09:57PM

I had my wedding reception at Lumville. Lovely spot. No rows at mine, oddly enough. Delighted this chap lost his case.

Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

Comments