Delivery driver sues pub for defamation after barman said €10 note was fake.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, it's very sad for the pub as the high court has upheld this idiotic award.
I applaud the pub for trying to go against the madness. But the courts have upheld their role as money fountains for idiots.
Sadly this hands more power to scrotes and shambags. They can go around stealing, robbing, handing out fake money, but no one can touch them, detain them and now you can't even say anything to them.
Having said that, I'm not saying Mr Nolan is any kind of criminal, he is merely an opportunist who smelled money, but it still sets a precedent. Unfortunately by trying to fight it, the pub managed to have it set in stone.
Next time I visit Ireland I'll print my own money.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/delivery-driver-awarded-5000-after-barman-said-10-note-he-used-to-pay-for-pint-was-fake-36989852.html

16. Mr. Bond gave evidence of the plaintiff entering and approaching the counter. Mr. Nolan ordered an alcoholic drink. Mr. Bond poured the drink and brought it to Mr. Nolan, who tendered the €10 note. He took possession of the note, turned around and took it to the till which was directly behind him. He did not think the €10 note felt right; it felt too heavy. When he had his back turned to Mr. Nolan, he examined the note by tearing it.

19. At this stage of his evidence, Mr. Bond introduced a new aspect – that the plaintiff started “getting on about watching your back”. This part of the exchange occurred before Mr. Nolan went to the garda station. On further questioning, however, Mr. Bond was not 100% sure that the words “watch your back” were used but he took whatever was said as a threat. This is why he also told Mr. Nolan that he, Mr. Bond, should have contacted the gardaí.

20. Approximately five minutes later, Mr. Nolan returned to the counter and approached Mr. Bond. Mr. Bond stated that he was not at precisely the same position at the bar as he had been earlier. He accepted that Mr. Nolan informed him that a garda had said that the note was legal tender to which Mr. Bond responded that he should “bring the garda over and that if he says that it is OK or gave him clearance I would accept it”. Again, he denied that this was said in a loud manner. It was suggested to him that he should have had no difficulty in telephoning the gardaí. He replied that he did not know why he had not contacted them. Earlier in his evidence he stated that he did not think that this step was necessary.

21. Mr. Bond confirmed that he had received neither training in relation to the identification of counterfeit tender, nor instruction as to how to deal with concerns relating thereto. While confirming that it was his habit to tear notes, in his earlier evidence he confirmed that this was the first occasion on which he had to deal with an incident such as this.

44. Despite being challenged under cross-examination where his credibility was seriously questioned to the extent that one can only conclude that he was being accused of falsifying evidence about his attendance at the garda station, Mr. Nolan maintained a calm demeanour and was, in the Court’s view, more convincing and far surer of the exchange than Mr. Bond.

45. A feature of the interaction between Mr. Bond and Mr. Nolan is that on Mr. Bond’s own account, he was being presented with a counterfeit note and he was satisfied that it was not authentic. The exchange became somewhat heated, according to Mr. Bond, and Mr. Nolan expressed words about “his back” or “watching his back”. While he may not have taken it as a serious threat, according to Mr. Bond the words were potentially threatening; yet no attempt was made by him, nor did he deem it necessary, to telephone the gardaí. Mr. Nolan informed him that he was going to go to the gardaí. The premises were relatively quiet, Mr. Bond had access to a telephone and on Mr. Bond’s own evidence, the plaintiff was effectively inviting such contact.

47. The Court must take cognisance of the fact that the two gardaí who were stated to be the only two on station duty on the evening, in a busy garda station, were not contacted about this matter for at least two years after its occurrence. The evidence of the gardaí, albeit given in a bona fide manner, was based on requests for their recollection at a very considerable remove from the date of the incident, and must be viewed in that light with the attendant frailties brought by the passage of time.

48. The immediate and continued actions and reactions of the parties on the night to what was said and done, in my view, are more consistent with the plaintiff’s description of the manner in which the exchange occurred, rather than the defendant’s recall of a more discreet discussion. There is also the reference in Sergeant Rothery’s report to the apparent knowledge of Mr. Nolan of the existence of a device in the station, which also appears more consistent with the plaintiff’s stated actions on the night. While I cannot be certain of the plaintiff’s attendance at the garda station, any uncertainty which I may have about this aspect of the case does not dissuade me from the conclusion regarding what, on balance, I accept as more likely to have occurred at the bar counter.

49. In light of the above, having had the opportunity to assess the demeanour of the witnesses, on the balance of probabilities, I accept the plaintiff’s description of what occurred as being more probable.

50. I find as a fact on the basis of the evidence of both witnesses that there were at least four persons at the bar, in close proximity to where the exchange between the parties took place. Having found in favour of the plaintiff’s description that the words in question were spoken in a loud manner and that the note was held aloft, I am satisfied that those at the bar could not but have heard and witnessed the exchange as described by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, publication was to a limited number of people.

52. Having considered the evidence of the parties, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established that the words, spoken in the manner alleged and in the context of the actions and gestures of Mr. Bond, were likely to have been heard and seen by members of the public who were seated nearby at the bar counter. I am also satisfied that the publication was excessive in the circumstances. Mr. Bond had the €10 in his hand. It was open to him to either report the matter to An Garda Síochána or to approach the plaintiff in a less public way. It appears to me that this was not a heat of the moment situation as might arise where a person thought to be shoplifter or thief makes a seeming escape, and where another makes a statement in response to the exigencies of the situation and the requirement for immediate action. In a number of the cases opened to the Court and referred to below, the defendant had much less control of the situation. Here there was no question of an apparent attempt to escape or to bid a hasty retreat. In fact the plaintiff remained in the area and wished to discuss or correct the impression that he had attempted to pass a false €10 note.

117. Ultimately this case turns on the manner of the publication and its excessiveness. It is inevitable that in certain circumstances, the taxing of persons with theft, implied or express, or fraud like activity, will be overheard by others, particularly when the charge is made in a public place. The law makes allowances for this. It will always be a matter of reasonableness and degree as to whether the line has been overstepped in determining whether the publication is excessive such as may destroy any privilege that might otherwise exist. To this end the Court repeats the caution expressed by Hardiman J. against requiring a defendant to exercise fine judgment or to employ a considered selection of words in situations that arise quickly and without notice. Nevertheless, on the facts of this case as so found, the defence of qualified privilege has not been established. Even without attempting to reconcile McCormack and McNamara, any privilege that may have applied, in my view, is negatived by unreasonable and excessive publication.

118. While I accept that excessive publication took place it appears to me that any publication was to a limited number of people and I am satisfied that the Circuit Court judge’s assessment of damages in the sum of €5,000 is appropriate.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's clearly not what the court is saying:



And so it's not the court's position that merely saying a note is fake is defamatory, but that the manner in which it is can be.

BattleCorp wrote: »

If you whispered to the customer that you think the note might be fake, then that probably wouldn't be defamatory.

If you shout at the top of your voice waving the note around that "this note is fake, you knowingly gave me a fake note", then that would more than likely be viewed as defamatory.