E7500 defamation charge for what???

16-01-2016 09:51AM

spurious wrote: »

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

Opening his company to a claim, which they lost, and rightly so, is doing ones job well? Between costs and damages this is a claim that will cost tens of thousands. I'd say it was a bad decision all round.

16-01-2016 09:55AM

VincePP wrote: »

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.

Nope, again giving a reason would be useless, if the reason was wrong.

And repeatedly calling her scum doesn't add to your point. It suggests you have judged her, from a few lines in a newspaper, in which she was as a matter of fact and law, the wronged party.

homerjay2005 · 16-01-2016 10:56AM

kneemos wrote: »

Security guard should know his job.

When you see the amount of scumbags out there and then Looking at this case, security guards have an impossible task.

No training or knowledge can help you with certain people who defy all logic.as to how this case got to court is one thing, how it was successful is astounding.

Youngblood.III · 16-01-2016 11:01AM

Mmmmm...what's to stop me taking a case against a bouncer at a nightclub if they say this to me at the door?

16-01-2016 11:01AM

That's a disgrace.. 7.5k for nothing. I'd set out to be mistakenly accused of wrongdoing in front of people just to sue after reading this. Far more profitable than stealing.

16-01-2016 11:02AM

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.

How could you give them money if you decide to not click any ads?

homerjay2005 · 16-01-2016 11:31AM

The comments section on the Irish Times Facebook is well worth a read!

Some classic comments and a ringing endorsement of the education system in certain parts of the country

Eugene Norman · 16-01-2016 11:37AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How could you give them money if you decide to not click any ads?

Inappropriate username.

runawaybishop · 16-01-2016 11:41AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How could you give them money if you decide to not click any ads?

Ad impressions, I.e views, earn cash although not as much as clickthroughs.

spurious · 16-01-2016 11:45AM

Anyone who knows the people involved knows the truth. This isn't the first of these cases. Another madam got a few bob out of a city centre grocery shop a few years ago after kicking the security guard. It's an industry.

MilesMorales1 · 16-01-2016 11:48AM

spurious wrote: »

Anyone who knows the people involved knows the truth. This isn't the first of these cases. Another madam got a few bob out of a city centre grocery shop a few years ago after kicking the security guard. It's an industry.

If thats true, why did she get such a large payment? Unless the judge is unaware I mean/

16-01-2016 11:51AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Ad impressions, I.e views, earn cash although not as much as clickthroughs.

The advertiser has to choose between cpc and cpm and the majority use cost per click. If it is cpm, it's a tiny amount.

melissak · 16-01-2016 11:57AM

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.

What is the law on this do you Know?
I've seen a sign that said trespassers will be shot. I doubt that is valid. 7500 is a lot for being a bit embarrassed.
.

Eugene Norman · 16-01-2016 11:58AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Opening his company to a claim, which they lost, and rightly so, is doing ones job well? Between costs and damages this is a claim that will cost tens of thousands. I'd say it was a bad decision all round.

Why was the case "rightly lost"

VinLieger · 16-01-2016 12:10PM

Reading between the lines of the information describing here in the articles about this it's pretty easy to see the kind of person she is

VincePP · 16-01-2016 12:38PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope, again giving a reason would be useless, if the reason was wrong.

And repeatedly calling her scum doesn't add to your point. It suggests you have judged her, from a few lines in a newspaper, in which she was as a matter of fact and law, the wronged party.

But the reason wasn't wrong and the truth is the ultimate defence in any action. It was acknowledged that she was banned for abusive behaviour. The error was guard just said "you know why " and that led it open to interpretation and she got the judge on a good day.

As for scum - I'm in retail and people like this are scum.

16-01-2016 03:27PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why was the case "rightly lost"

Because it's the law of defamation.

You only have to read all the posts here and see how many now refer to her as "scum" even though there is no finding that she herself did anything wrong...other than be in the company of someone a security guard believed was removing tags on a previous occasion. A lot of people believe they now "know" her and "her type". Defamation law is not based on "types", it's based on the right if an individual to protect their character and reputation and hers is fairly shredded here...

languagenerd · 16-01-2016 05:42PM

I hate this kind of crap. She didn't suffer any loss of earnings so why does she deserve any money at all, let alone €7500? A handful of her friends and a few other customers who have probably not seen her since *may* have thought she was shoplifting. There's now a newspaper article or seven saying she wasn't shoplifting or "under suspicion of having done anything suspicious" (brilliant writing from the Indo there). Surely that has redressed the wrong against her, especially when the judge acknowledged she had had "words" with the security guard two weeks before that. I could understand if her legal costs to clear her name were covered, but that's about it.

These frivolous lawsuits are crippling businesses here, hiking up insurance rates all round and preventing security guards from doing their jobs in cases where they know people are planning to shoplift. Why do people automatically expect monetary compensation for minor wrongs that didn't cost them any money whatsoever?

16-01-2016 05:45PM

languagenerd wrote: »

I hate this kind of crap. She didn't suffer any loss of earnings so why does she deserve any money at all, let alone €7500?

All defamations are actionable per se and do not need proof of special damages since the 2009 Act. But even prior to that this would have been actionable anyway.

kneemos · 16-01-2016 05:45PM

languagenerd wrote: »

I hate this kind of crap. She didn't suffer any loss of earnings so why does she deserve any money at all, let alone €7500? A handful of her friends and a few other customers who have probably not seen her since *may* have thought she was shoplifting. There's now a newspaper article or seven saying she wasn't shoplifting or "under suspicion of having done anything suspicious" (brilliant writing from the Indo there). Surely that has redressed the wrong against her, especially when the judge acknowledged she had had "words" with the security guard two weeks before that. I could understand if her legal costs to clear her name were covered, but that's about it.

These frivolous lawsuits are crippling businesses here, hiking up insurance rates all round and preventing security guards from doing their jobs in cases where they know people are planning to shoplift. Why do people automatically expect monetary compensation for minor wrongs that didn't cost them any money whatsoever?

Laws exist to prevent a headlong decent in anarchy.

languagenerd · 16-01-2016 05:57PM

kneemos wrote: »

Laws exist to prevent a headlong decent in anarchy.

I know that. I also know we need a law against defamation and defamation by innuendo, as someone's entire life can be ruined by false accusations. But that doesn't mean that I agree with the exact defamation laws we have at the moment or that large sums of money should be handed over in a case with minimal repercussions.

This case barely caused any consequences for the woman in question. She didn't lose any money, she still shops at the store, she wasn't identified as a troublemaker to security in the shopping centre itself or any other nearby store, her name wasn't 'blacklisted' to staff at that store, she didn't lose a job over it, she wasn't loudly called a thief in the street or dragged out of the shop. A handful of people, the majority of whom don't know her name and wouldn't be able to pick her out in a crowd, might or might not have thought she was shoplifting. Did she really suffer any damages at all as a result?

16-01-2016 06:02PM

languagenerd wrote: »

This case barely caused any consequences for the woman in question. She didn't lose any money, she still shops at the store, she wasn't identified as a troublemaker to security in the shopping centre itself or any other nearby store, her name wasn't 'blacklisted' to staff at that store, she didn't lose a job over it, she wasn't loudly called a thief in the street or dragged out of the shop. A handful of people, the majority of whom don't know her name and wouldn't be able to pick her out in a crowd, might or might not have thought she was shoplifting. Did she really suffer any damages at all as a result?

Again, defamation is actionable per se. All the things you listed are not relevant. Which is absolutely how it should be, the suggestion that one has to demonstrate that they lost money or a job could amount to a charter for people to say anything about anyone. For starters, it would mean someone without a job wouldn't be able to sue to protect their reputation, as they may not have suffered financial loss even if outrageously defamed.

kneemos · 16-01-2016 06:09PM

languagenerd wrote: »

I know that. I also know we need a law against defamation and defamation by innuendo, as someone's entire life can be ruined by false accusations. But that doesn't mean that I agree with the exact defamation laws we have at the moment or that large sums of money should be handed over in a case with minimal repercussions.

This case barely caused any consequences for the woman in question. She didn't lose any money, she still shops at the store, she wasn't identified as a troublemaker to security in the shopping centre itself or any other nearby store, her name wasn't 'blacklisted' to staff at that store, she didn't lose a job over it, she wasn't loudly called a thief in the street or dragged out of the shop. A handful of people, the majority of whom don't know her name and wouldn't be able to pick her out in a crowd, might or might not have thought she was shoplifting. Did she really suffer any damages at all as a result?

According to a previous poster the 7500 was a fairly meagre sum,15,000 was more usual.

The law plays a part in prevention as well as prosecution.
Other stores will see this judgement and make damn sure proper procedures are followed in their stores.If this had happened here she wouldn't have had a case.

hatrickpatrick · 16-01-2016 06:10PM

She said when she asked him why, Mitchell had told her ‘you know why’ and directed her out of the store. She had been embarrassed in front of friends and other customers.

Fully support her case. Security people should be obliged to tell you what you've actually allegedly done, because half the time they treat people like this purely out of social profiling (don't like the look of you / don't like your accent / don't like your choice of clothes / don't like your piercings / whatever)

There'd be far less of this bullsh!t if they had to actually tell you why they were kicking you out. Further down the article the store admits that there was no suspicion about this woman, so essentially the bouncer was just being a pr!ck.

Azalea · 16-01-2016 06:14PM

How could she not have known she was banned from that shop. And the abuse she gave him - I'm happy to deem her scummy.

kneemos · 16-01-2016 06:17PM

Azalea wrote: »

How could she not have known she was banned from that shop. And the abuse she gave him - I'm happy to deem her scummy.

She wasn't.

16-01-2016 06:18PM

Azalea wrote: »

How could she not have known she was banned from that shop. And the abuse she gave him - I'm happy to deem her scummy.

Did the Court determine that she was banned? I'm not sure that was actually accepted at all.

Paz-CCFC · 16-01-2016 06:20PM

Azalea wrote: »

How could she not have known she was banned from that shop. And the abuse she gave him - I'm happy to deem her scummy.

Alleged abuse. The defendant argued that the security guard was abused, but the court didn't find that she did, hence why the article headline uses "alleged" in the first place.

I always find the dichotomy of opinion between criminal and civil cases on After Hours funny. If it's a criminal cases, then the defendant is absolute scum that should be locked up, even if a judge/jury has found him innocent. However, in civil cases it's the reverse. The defendant is always a saint who acted perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. The claimant is just a scumbag, playing the system, with judges with decades of legal experience who simply don't understand the law like an occasional reader of the court pages on the Irish Independent does.

kneemos · 16-01-2016 06:24PM

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Alleged abuse. The defendant argued that the security guard was abused, but the court didn't find that she did, hence why the article headline uses "alleged" in the first place.

I always find the dichotomy of opinion between criminal and civil cases on After Hours funny. If it's a criminal cases, then the defendant is absolute scum that should be locked up, even if a judge/jury has found him innocent. However, in civil cases it's the reverse. The defendant is always a saint who acted perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. The claimant is just a scumbag, playing the system, with judges with decades of legal experience who simply don't understand the law like an occasional reader of the court pages on the Irish Independent does.

Don't bother with common sense or facts either.

K-9 · 16-01-2016 06:25PM

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

Mad thing is the judge basically said it was insignificant but awarded her €7,500 anyway, encouraging compo culture.

E7500 defamation charge for what???

Comments