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

Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

Options
245678

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    robertpatterson
    Registered Users Posts: 929 ✭✭✭robertpatterson


    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:


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


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


  • Options
    #34
    keithclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    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.


  • Options
    #35
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    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


  • Options
    #36
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,004 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    abff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,722 ✭✭✭abff


    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.


  • Options
    #38
    abff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,722 ✭✭✭abff


    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?


  • Options
    #39
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    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.


  • Options
    #40
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


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


  • Options
    #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


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


  • Options
    #43
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,776 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.


  • Options
    #44
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    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.


  • Options
    #45
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    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.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #47
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    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.


  • Options
    #48
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    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!


  • Options
    #49
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    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.


  • Options
    #50
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,004 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    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'.


  • Options
    #51
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,776 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Hans Bricks
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hans Bricks


    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 ....


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #54
    Hans Bricks
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hans Bricks


    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.


  • Options
    #55
    homewardbound11
    Registered Users Posts: 894 ✭✭✭homewardbound11


    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.


  • Options
    #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #57
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,004 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    [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.


  • Options
    #58
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #59
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,021 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    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?


  • Options
    #60
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Massimo Cassagrande
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Massimo Cassagrande


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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement