75 year old sues for 10m

GreeBo

Guys please be aware that anything libel will be removed by mods/admins and the user posting it will be banned.
Also note that making accusations against/about Mr Talbot may wall result in legal action against you.
When making a post on boards.ie first ask yourself would you stand up in a pub and shout the same thing?
If not then maybe you shouldnt post it.

Duggys Housemate

Surely it is now ok to accuse a plaintiff of something he failed to win a defamation case against, speaking generally.

GreeBo

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Surely it is now ok to accuse a plaintiff of something he failed to win a defamation case against, speaking generally.

Not at all. In general terms the plaintiff failed to make a case that he had been defamed. Thats completely different than the GUI (for example) winning a case where they have accused someone of being naughty, The plaintiff could just as easily win the next case and judging by some of the sentiment on here it would be a simple open and shut case of libel, in his favour.

kentreaper

GreeBo wrote: »

ask yourself would you stand up in a pub and shout the same thing?

Not quite the same thing!

Internet boards are largely anonymous, like cyberspace generally.

But, in my local pub, I am well known...

Many post on here because of this. No?

charlieIRL

kentreaper wrote: »

Not quite the same thing!

Internet boards are largely anonymous, like cyberspace generally.

But, in my local pub, I am well known...

Many post on here because of this. No?

It is very similar, your not as anonymous on the internet as you think.

Anything you post here is, like what Greebo said, like saying it in public and therefore when you slander someone you leave yourself wide open for a defamation case.

Jame Gumb

I don't understand how there can have been defamation on the basis that the offending letter was a private one from the handicap secretary to the golfer?

I thought that defamation had to be public?

kentreaper

charlieIRL wrote: »

your not as anonymous on the internet as you think

Not quite correct charlie - there are many ways of hiding your tracks.

For example, my IP address is false (216...) - no law against that, just prudence.

I am in Kent, but all trace programs will show that I'm In San Jose, California.

So libel/slander actions (or troll searches!) might be somewhat lenghty....

retroactive

charlieIRL wrote: »

It is very similar, your not as anonymous on the internet as you think.

Anything you post here is, like what Greebo said, like saying it in public and therefore when you slander someone you leave yourself wide open for a defamation case.

Can we just be clear that truth is a complete defence to defamation, as is an honestly held belief. The “honest opinion” defence is available for honestly-held opinions as long as—

(1) at the time of publication, the defendant believed in the truth of the opinion (or thought that its author believed it to be true),

(2) the opinion was based on proven (or honestly believed) allegations of fact that were known to those to whom the statement was published, or

(3) the opinion was based on proven (or reasonably likely) allegations of fact which were privileged and the opinion related to a matter of public interest.

I've seen that Boards.ie Mods are terrified of defamation suits, but in reality they're quite difficult to ground. Factor in the fact that this is the internet and an anon discussion board, that difficulty becomes a near impossiblity.

moving to the actual topic,

The 'floodgates' principle must be at play in the ruling. Had he gotten his case over the line, there would have been a line of people outside the clerks office wanting to lodge papers and clubs would find it impossible to get insurance.

10 Million? That is just completely unreasonable.

The man is a serial litigant. The man acts as a lay litigant (A possible reason the trial took 22(?) days). Should he be alive in 5 years time when the appeal reaches the SC then it will certainly be thrown out. Although I can't see a full de novo defamation appeal to the SC happening.

The unfortunate thing is he will lodge his appeal. He will drag this out for years. In that time the Lawyers will want to paid resulting in GUI and the Golf club involved being under considerable financial pressures.

The costs order will be eventually be enforced and his assets will be liquidated but if he's dead then there is further complications.

kentreaper

retroactive wrote: »

The costs order will be eventually be enforced and his assets will be liquidated

I do not think so.

Hermitage and the GUI will be forced to go easy on this old chap.

A clause barring litigation by members should have been in the 'membership agreement' - just like the GAA, IRFU, and FAI have.

The club's failure to have this most basic safeguard will have the bill paid by them.

:cool:

the_syco

kentreaper wrote: »

For example, my IP address is false (216...) - no law against that, just prudence.

Off topic, but if someone brought a warrant to the company giving you a false IP, they will usually just roll over. Not many will fight the Feds on your behalf.

retroactive

kentreaper wrote: »

A clause barring litigation by members should have been in the 'membership agreement' - just like the GAA, IRFU, and FAI have.


:cool:

I meant to include that in my post but I was too busy thinking about Appeals by case stated and the governing law.

It is shocking that the membership contract didn't have some ADR clause stating that mediation etc would be final and binding. However, I don't see why not having ADR clause would stop the defendants from getting their costs -

(1) They were forced to spend money to defend an action.

(2) This action was found to be frivolous (He couldn't reach the balance of probabilities test)

(3) Negotiation and settlement were avenues open to him at each and every step.

If I were Barrister I would be in the reg of deeds conducting a negative search against his name to see what property I could but a charge order on. would also be seeking security for costs for the SC appeal.

(Actually, I wonder why didn't the club etc seek security for costs pursuant to Oder 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts in the first place?)

He's a vexatious lay litigant costing an innocent club money, why should he not be forced to pay? Or rather why should they go easy on him?

GreeBo

retroactive wrote: »

kentreaper wrote: »

A clause barring litigation by members should have been in the 'membership agreement' - just like the GAA, IRFU, and FAI have.


:cool:

I meant to include that in my post but I was too busy thinking about Appeals by case stated and the governing law.

It is shocking that the membership contract didn't have some ADR clause stating that mediation etc would be final and binding. However, I don't see why not having ADR clause would stop the defendants from getting their costs -

(1) They were forced to spend money to defend an action.

(2) This action was found to be frivolous (He couldn't reach the balance of probabilities test)

(3) Negotiation and settlement were avenues open to him at each and every step.

If I were Barrister I would be in the reg of deeds conducting a negative search against his name to see what property I could but a charge order on. would also be seeking security for costs for the SC appeal.

(Actually, I wonder why didn't the club etc seek security for costs pursuant to Oder 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts in the first place?)

He's a vexatious lay litigant costing an innocent club money, why should he not be forced to pay? Or rather why should they go easy on him?

I always thought you couldn't sue your own club as on effect you are suing yourself (in a members club)?



oh and mods/boards.ie had no interest in spending money defending these cases.

kentreaper

retroactive wrote: »

- Negotiation and settlement were avenues open to him

- I wonder why didn't the club etc seek security for costs

- why should he not be forced to pay?

On the first point - 'we do not know this'

The second - 'they could not, before winning the case'

And the third - 'public opinion will prevail; many will say that the posh/rich Hermitage brought it on themselves - no ADR clause etc.'

:cool:

retroactive

kentreaper wrote: »

On the first point - 'we do not know this'

The second - 'they could not, before winning the case'

And the third - 'public opinion will prevail; many will say that the posh/rich Hermitage brought it on themselves - no ADR clause etc.'

:cool:

Negotiation is always an option. A vast amount of civil litigation is avoided using negotiation. It's also a complusory bar exam. But I will agree to disagree on this point, if you note that the Club was forced to defend an unmeritorious claim

Order 29 Security of Costs occurs before the outcome of a case and is specifically designed to prevent people dodging costs. Merely a notice of motion, grounding affidavit and a quick appearance by counsel will do it.

Fortunately, the costs and the case will be decided by the taxing master and the judges ... not by public opinion.

IITYWYBMAD

GreeBo wrote: »

I always thought you couldn't sue your own club as on effect you are suing yourself (in a members club)?



oh and mods/boards.ie had no interest in spending money defending these cases.

You can sue the committee, secretary, etc...He claimed the handicap committee defamed him . The club and GUI were forced to defend here.

Remember, as I have previously stated, libel is one of those situations where the court views initially that a libel has taken place. It is up to the defendants to prove that they did not libel the individual, and not up to the plaintiff to prove he/she was libeled.

kentreaper

Retro - I dispute your first two points, but not your third.

However 'public opinion' will decide who PAYS!

The GUI and Hermitage to bankrupt a 75 year old eccentric - their own member for decades? I think not.....

Through sheer incompetence, Hermitage (and the GUI?) have painted themselves into a corner - and will just have to eat the pie of humility.

kentreaper

the_syco wrote: »

if someone brought a warrant to the company giving you a false IP, they will usually just roll over. Not many will fight the Feds on your behalf.

Warrant/Feds!! Company giving a false IP?

Its as easy to create a false/bogus IP (I can appear to be located anywhere), as it is to find where real ones are.

Also, numerous masking programs are available to make any type of hacking impossible.

GreeBo

kentreaper wrote: »

Warrant/Feds!! Company giving a false IP?

Its as easy to create a false/bogus IP (I can appear to be located anywhere), as it is to find where real ones are.

Also, numerous masking programs are available to make any type of hacking impossible.

There is always a trail, otherwise the responses to your requests wouldnt get back to you.
The initial trail leads to the proxy but whoever owns the anonymous proxy will give out your details as soon as someone comes knocking.


Either way, we will ban you if you expose boards.ie to legal action.
Now back on topic please.