E7500 defamation charge for what???

Specialun · 15-01-2016 06:12PM #1

Im confused by this one

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-25-who-allegedly-called-security-guard-a-thick-st-awarded-defamation-damages-34367506.html

GreatDefector · 15-01-2016 06:15PM

Specialun wrote: »

Im confused by this one

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-25-who-allegedly-called-security-guard-a-thick-st-awarded-defamation-damages-34367506.html

The guy who slept with her is one who deserves the €7.5 tbh...

Dravokivich · 15-01-2016 06:16PM

So... Security can't do what we expect security to do these days. Unless somehow they manage to do things out of sight of the persons friends and other customers.

thebaz · 15-01-2016 07:12PM

Specialun wrote: »

Im confused by this one

[

I'm not - its a reflection on our judiciary , who are so out of step with day to day modern life , most live a pampered life sheltered up in the law library - reading this case seams as no one was actually guilty of anything , except perhaps the soft judge

HeidiHeidi · 15-01-2016 07:14PM

Any chance you could post an extract, or give a summary of what this is about?

I'm reluctant to contribute more to the Indo's coffers by succumbing to their clickbait, tbh.

JackHeuston · 15-01-2016 07:16PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Any chance you could post an extract, or give a summary of what this is about?

I'm reluctant to contribute more to the Indo's coffers by succumbing to their clickbait, tbh.

Young woman and some friends of her approach a shop from which said woman's banned.

Security makes her leave. She asks why, security says "you know why".

Young woman was offended and was defamed in front of her friends and other customers.

pickarooney · 15-01-2016 07:16PM

This sounds exactly like a report from Irish Pictorial Weekly.

My name is URL · 15-01-2016 07:17PM

Whatever about whether or not she was defamed (I can't see how she was in this case), €7,500 is an absurd amount to award her for feeling embarrassed in front of a few mates.

Red King · 15-01-2016 07:22PM

This kind of thing only encourages the scum.

The_Valeyard · 15-01-2016 07:23PM

If she was previous banned from the shop because of an offence then this is absurd.

If she was unknown to security and was profiled, then she might have a case. But not 7500.

Guy:Incognito · 15-01-2016 07:28PM

I'm sure her friends are well aware what type of person she is so it's not really possible for her to be defamed.:)

darkpagandeath · 15-01-2016 07:28PM

And people wonder why Insurance premiums are going up due to ridiculous stuff like this getting the green light from Judges. And why big up Mum ? Do Mums get more embarrassed ?

Fr_Dougal · 15-01-2016 07:37PM

Mitchell told the court that the store management had taken the decision to bar Ms Hayes from the store after she had been very abusive two weeks before the incident, when she was asked to leave the store after one of her friends allegedly removed a security tag off an item.

Show me your friends, and I'll tell you who you are.

flutered · 15-01-2016 08:02PM

security gaurds have a rather thankless job, also it involves so very careful what they say and must make sure not to touch some folk, the sum involved when i was in that job was 15,000 for false accusations, that was a long time ago, i recon that she is more than peed off with the award

16-01-2016 06:30AM

thebaz wrote: »

I'm not - its a reflection on our judiciary , who are so out of step with day to day modern life , most live a pampered life sheltered up in the law library - reading this case seams as no one was actually guilty of anything , except perhaps the soft judge

Well obviously no one was guilty of anything...it was a civil case, not a criminal one.

And the Judge got it spot on. If a security guard requires you to leave a shop, there is an obvious inference that you were shoplifting. Much the same as if the alarm goes off on leaving a store when you have paid for items. Check out the area of defamation called "innuendo". And if it angers you, shake your hand at the sky or the legislators...but drop the silly stuff about pampered Judges. He knows the law, you don't.

kneemos · 16-01-2016 06:57AM

Security guard should know his job.

Cookie_Monster · 16-01-2016 07:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

If a security guard requires you to leave a shop, there is an obvious inference that you were shoplifting.

don't be ridiculous. There are multiple reasons why you may be banned from any particular shop aside from shoplifting.

16-01-2016 07:36AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

don't be ridiculous. There are multiple reasons why you may be banned from any particular shop aside from shoplifting.

Erm, talk about completely missing the point!

Yes, there may be other reasons, cutting clothes with a scissors, crapping in the changing rooms, whatever

The point (I thought was obvious) is that being removed by a security guard implies that you did something wrong, something that would lower your standing in the eyes of the community such as shoplifting.

Galwayguy35 · 16-01-2016 08:52AM

Anyone who uses language like that to someone who is just doing their job deserves to be removed, she didn't steal anything but she sounds like a right skanger.

Nice "friends" she has as well, who allegedly go around removing security labels from clothes.

16-01-2016 09:03AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Anyone who uses language like that to someone who is just doing their job deserves to be removed, she didn't steal anything but she sounds like a right skanger...

But he wasn't doing his job...unless doing his job is to eject people who have done nothing wrong at all.

It could be in response, and justified. If a security guard removed me from a store in front of people I know, he'd get an earful too.

Galwayguy35 · 16-01-2016 09:10AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But he wasn't doing his job...unless doing his job is to eject people who have done nothing wrong at all.

It could be in response, and justified. If a security guard removed me from a store in front of people I know, he'd get an earful too.

Do you hang around with people who draw the suspicion of security staff in clothes shops?

I'm sure you don't and neither do I, people aren't asked to leave for no reason.

sabat · 16-01-2016 09:13AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well obviously no one was guilty of anything...it was a civil case, not a criminal one.

And the Judge got it spot on. If a security guard requires you to leave a shop, there is an obvious inference that you were shoplifting. Much the same as if the alarm goes off on leaving a store when you have paid for items. Check out the area of defamation called "innuendo". And if it angers you, shake your hand at the sky or the legislators...but drop the silly stuff about pampered Judges. He knows the law, you don't.

I presume they have a big sign saying "management reserves the right to refuse admission" which is exactly what the security was doing in this case - refusing admission. Nobody has an automatic right to enter a premises - I'd love to see what would happen if someone like yer wan and her pals rocked up to one of the judge's favourite restaurants and started ordering lobster and champagne. Would it be defamatory if the waiter asked them for proof of ability to pay?

16-01-2016 09:16AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

people aren't asked to leave for no reason.

They are sometimes. And when they are, the law of defamation gives them a cause of action. And rightly so, remember all that we have is an allegation, by a security guard, that not her but someone she was with, didn't steal but removed a tag...he was wrong to remove her.

16-01-2016 09:19AM

sabat wrote: »

I presume they have a big sign saying "management reserves the right to refuse admission" which is exactly what the security was doing in this case - refusing admission. Nobody has an automatic right to enter a premises - I'd love to see what would happen if someone like yer wan and her pals rocked up to one of the judge's favourite restaurants and started ordering lobster and champagne. Would it be defamatory if the waiter asked them for proof of ability to pay?

Um, big signs don't trump the law...even big colouredy signs with capitals and all...

And she wasn't refused admission. She was in the shop, she was wrongly removed. The Courts made the correct decision.

kylith · 16-01-2016 09:31AM

She was asked to leave a shop which she was banned from. What she did wrong was enter a shop when she knew that she was banned from the premises.

16-01-2016 09:35AM

kylith wrote: »

She was asked to leave a shop which she was banned from. What she did wrong was enter a shop when she knew that she was banned from the premises.

Where did you get that?

The article in the OP says something completely different, that the Court found that she thought she could go in. There is no finding that she was both banned and she knew this.

spurious · 16-01-2016 09:39AM

kneemos wrote:

Security guard should know his job.

I'd say in this case he did his job well.

sabat · 16-01-2016 09:42AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Um, big signs don't trump the law...even big colouredy signs with capitals and all...

'Fraid they do.
"Management is not responsible for articles lost or stolen on premises"
"Cars parked at owners' risk" etc
These aren't put up for fun.

kneemos · 16-01-2016 09:43AM

kylith wrote: »

She was asked to leave a shop which she was banned from. What she did wrong was enter a shop when she knew that she was banned from the premises.

The security guard told her she could come back into the store when she calmed down.No mention of barring.

She may or may not be a walking terror,but the law applies equally to everyone.

16-01-2016 09:47AM

sabat wrote: »

'Fraid they do.
"Management is not responsible for articles lost or stolen on premises"
"Cars parked at owners' risk" etc
These aren't put up for fun.

Again, no they don't. You are as wrong as you can be.

I can't stick a sign on myself saying I can't be sued. Signs mean very little in most areas of the law, save for occupier's liability where they are popular. Even where a person signs a note saying they read and understood the sign, it is no protection from being sued.

And certainly there is no sign that says "we can defame you, but these few words mean you can't sue us".

VincePP · 16-01-2016 09:49AM

I think where the error was that the security guy said "you know why" and by not saying the exact reason gave this scumbag the excuse to sue - remember scum like this are professional at what they do and have chaser solicitors as the number one number on their phone.

If security said that she was banned due to abusive and threatening language used previously, then she would have had no case.

I do reckon she got the judge on a good day and it will be appealed.

E7500 defamation charge for what???

Comments