Woman sues shop over ludicrous defamation claim.

c.p.w.g.w

Women buys wine in shop A, walks into shop B sets it down in off license section. Buys her few bits, returns to off license section and walks out with wine...

She sets it up, and the shop keeper took the bate... Absolutely disgraceful carry on from the women

Article here

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-buys-wine-leaves-it-on-shelf-in-different-dublin-shop-and-then-sues-for-20k-when-asked-if-she-paid-for-it-36479636.html

Sorry it's the sindo

MilesMorales1

A WOMAN settled a defamation claim for €20,000 after she bought a bottle of wine in a Dublin supermarket, walked down the road to a different shop, left the wine on a shelf and was asked by a staff member if she paid for it.
The woman purchased something in the shop and as she was leaving, she picked up the bottle of wine which she had bought in the supermarket.
The wine was left on a shelf in the off-licence section of the store.

A staff member, assuming it belonged to their store, then asked if she had paid for the wine.
The woman then claimed for defamation and argued she was being accused of stealing.

The case was recently settled outside of court as it was argued the shopkeeper should have seen the woman had left the wine on the shelf and that it was hers.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-buys-wine-leaves-it-on-shelf-in-different-dublin-shop-and-then-sues-for-20k-when-asked-if-she-paid-for-it-36479636.html


What a load of ****, sounds like a perfectly reasonable question from the shop, and the woman either took offence or saw an opportunity to claim for compensation. Hardly grounds to be mortally offended either I wouldn't think.

suicide_circus

The Compo Culture: Pushing up the price of goods and stifling entrepreneurship in your community.

BrokenArrows

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-buys-wine-leaves-it-on-shelf-in-different-dublin-shop-and-then-sues-for-20k-when-asked-if-she-paid-for-it-36479636.html


What a load of ****, sounds like a perfectly reasonable question from the shop, and the woman either took offence or saw an opportunity to claim for compensation. Hardly grounds to be mortally offended either I wouldn't think.

Madness. Why in the world would they settle this?
Surely asking if someone paid for their product is not defamation.

“Unfortunately, 2018 could be pretty bleak for the affected businesses unless the Government act fast and introduce harsher penalties and jail time for these unscrupulous fraudsters,” he added."

No they dont need harsher sentences for fraudsters, they just need to stop siding with people who make stupid claims.

Even if it was ruled that what he did was defamation 20k is crazy. She should have been given a free bottle of wine and told to jog on.

namloc1980

Insurance companies will gladly payout, so they can then hike up everyone's premiums.

Aglomerado

Dangerous precedent.

Skihunta13

namloc1980 wrote: »

Insurance companies will gladly payout, so they can then hike up everyone's premiums.

I think its more that judes will always side with the complainant. Judges should be named and shamed fir their rediculous easy out decisions. They are the real reason insurance is so high in this country.

Mint Sauce

(i) You carry your shopping around with you.
(ii) You ask the shop keeper if I can leave my bag at the counter whilst I browse/shop in your store.

What you dont do is place identical items from another store on their shelfs, intentionally or unintentionally, and then get all huffy and puffy when asked for proof of purchase.

Fucking chancers ruining everything for the rest of us!

Insurer scammers as well, is probably what put up both my home and car insurance last year as well. When will judges and the courts fully cop on to this!

givyjoe

Aglomerado wrote: »

Dangerous precedent.

Not at all a precedent and is something which shops and security staff should be aware of. You have to be very sure of theft before essentially accusing someone. The amount of the award is a... bit much.

Samuel T. Cogley

Very well known scam.

Boom_Bap

Threadz Merged

baylah17

Skihunta13 wrote: »

I think its more that judes will always side with the complainant. Judges should be named and shamed fir their rediculous easy out decisions. They are the real reason insurance is so high in this country.

Case was settled , therfore no Judge involved.

Omackeral

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

What a load of ****, sounds like a perfectly reasonable question from the shop and the woman either took offence or saw an opportunity to claim for compensation.

You're seldom dealing with reasonable people in these instances though.

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Hardly grounds to be mortally offended either I wouldn't think.

It's 2018, everyone is offended by something or else sees an opportunity (financial, in this case) to say they're offended.

Omackeral

Aglomerado wrote: »

Dangerous precedent.

Who, Trump?

Crimson King

baylah17 wrote: »

Case was settled , therfore no Judge involved.

I took it that it would be a foregone conclusion if a judge was involved and the shop could be exposed to a higher amount of compensation.

Aglomerado

Omackeral wrote: »

Who, Trump?

:D

Him too!!!

namloc1980

givyjoe wrote: »

Not at all a precedent and is something which shops and security staff should be aware of. You have to be very sure of theft before essentially accusing someone. The amount of the award is a... bit much.

She was asked if she paid for the item. Hardly a serious accusation of theft. This is just a scammer who's been rewarded by the system.

Crimson King

Crimson King wrote: »

I took it that it would be a foregone conclusion if a judge was involved and the shop could be exposed to a higher amount of compensation.

I'd say if it was forced to a hearing, a lot of Judges would roll their eyes and wonder if there was any defamation at all, because asking if someone paid for something does not per se imply they had stolen it. Even if she got over that hurdle, I'd imagine the award would be minimal, and if any lodgement was made at all she'd be in trouble.

givyjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

She was asked if she paid for the item. Hardly a serious accusation of theft. This is just a scammer who's been rewarded by the system.

It doesn't matter if it was 'serious' or not, it was an accusation of theft and an unfounded one, hence it's defamation. Maybe it was a 'scam' or rather a bait, it's still defamation.

Omackeral

Why 20K though? How do they arrive at that figure? Is it arbitrary?

Fr_Dougal

It’s hearsay.

Stonedpilot

givyjoe wrote: »

Not at all a precedent and is something which shops and security staff should be aware of. You have to be very sure of theft before essentially accusing someone. The amount of the award is a... bit much.

This. Shops need to be certain.

FishOnABike

Omackeral wrote: »

Why 20K though? How do they arrive at that figure? Is it arbitrary?

If it was too low a claimant would be more likely to chance going to court hoping for a higher payout. Add the shop's and claimant's legal costs to what the minimum the claimant might get if it went to court and that (plus administrative costs) would be the cost to the shop's insurers.

Any figure between what the claimant would stand a good chance of getting in court and the above minimises the insurance company's risk and payout while giving the claimant enough to make it too risky taking the case to court in the hope of a higher payout as if they were awarded less than offered they could be liable for both sides costs.

It's a game of bluff really - here's enough money to make it too risky to look for more. The insurance company (and its legal team) probably has the experience and data to know where to strike the balance to minimise their risk /cost. This might including knowing the form of the judge the case comes before, which might explain why a significant number of cases end up being settled on the steps of the court (sometimes literally).

baylah17

Crimson King wrote: »

I took it that it would be a foregone conclusion if a judge was involved and the shop could be exposed to a higher amount of compensation.

I disagree, no shortage of cases where Judges have found against plaintiffs, if you care to look them up.

Cuddlesworth

The case settled. She might not have been paid a cent.

Omackeral

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The case settled. She might not have been paid a cent.

Are we still allowed to get outraged tho?

namloc1980

givyjoe wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it was 'serious' or not, it was an accusation of theft and an unfounded one, hence it's defamation. Maybe it was a 'scam' or rather a bait, it's still defamation.

How was it unfounded exactly? The customer picked up an item off the shelf and went to walk out the door. Shop assistants can't reasonably be expected to know that in that case she actually came in and placed the item on a shelf only to later pick it up. The customer behaviour here of buying something elsewhere and then putting it on a shelf in another shop is not a usual thing to do, therefore it was not unreasonable for the assistant to ask if it had been paid for. Therefore it wasn't unfounded. What your suggesting is that it is never ok to challenge a shoplifter unless there is irrefutable evidence. Shop owners and employees have better things to be doing than following customers around on the off chance they might lift something.

givyjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

How was it unfounded exactly? The customer picked up an item off the shelf and went to walk out the door. Shop assistants can't reasonably be expected to know that in that case she actually came in and placed the item on a shelf only to later pick it up. The customer behaviour here of buying something elsewhere and then putting it on a shelf in another shop is not a usual thing to do, therefore it was not unreasonable for the assistant to ask if it had been paid for. Therefore it wasn't unfounded. What your suggesting is that it is never ok to challenge a shoplifter unless there is irrefutable evidence. Shop owners and employees have better things to be doing than following customers around on the off chance they might lift something.

It's the responsibility of the shop/staff NOT to incorrectly accuse/imply that goods have not been paid for/stolen, however the shop go about that. Whether it's cameras or a security guard or a mix of both.

It does not matter what you consider as a reasonable question to ask, unless you're sure that someone has not paid for/stolen an item, you are leaving yourself open to a defamation claim by doing what this shop did,hence this case happened.

If this was done deliberately by the person receiving the award, they're utter scum, but unfortunately the shop staff fell for it.

namloc1980 wrote: »

..... What your suggesting is that it is never ok to challenge a shoplifter unless there is irrefutable evidence.....

And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.This is not something new.

namloc1980

givyjoe wrote: »

It's the responsibility of the shop/staff NOT to incorrectly accuse/imply that goods have not been paid for/stolen, however the shop go about that. Whether it's cameras or a security guard or a mix of both.

It does not matter what you consider as a reasonable question to ask, unless you're sure that someone has not paid for/stolen an item, you are leaving yourself open to a defamation claim by doing what this shop did,hence this case happened.

If this was done deliberately by the person receiving the award, they're utter scum, but unfortunately the shop staff fell for it.




And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.This is not something new.

So the scammer/thief is the beneficiary. Just because that's always the way it's been, doesn't make it right.

CrankyHaus

givyjoe wrote: »

It's the responsibility of the shop/staff NOT to incorrectly accuse/imply that goods have not been paid for/stolen, however the shop go about that. Whether it's cameras or a security guard or a mix of both.

It does not matter what you consider as a reasonable question to ask, unless you're sure that someone has not paid for/stolen an item, you are leaving yourself open to a defamation claim by doing what this shop did,hence this case happened.

If this was done deliberately by the person receiving the award, they're utter scum, but unfortunately the shop staff fell for it.




And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.This is not something new.

The shopkeeper's right to 'tax' customers to ensure they have paid for goods is well established at common law and falls under qualified privilege in the Defamation Act.

I'm not aware of courts finding defamation occurred where staff merely asked if somebody paid for something, though I'm open to correction.
So it seems like the Insurance company dropped the ball here by settling.

Incidentally, it is not uncommon for people to stage thefts and sue for defamation. The item they pretend to have stolen is bought elsewhere, and the receipt retained, before they make a show of taking it from a second shop to trick that shop's staff into accusing them of theft.
The circumstances here are suspiciously similar.

TallGlass

givyjoe wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it was 'serious' or not, it was an accusation of theft and an unfounded one, hence it's defamation. Maybe it was a 'scam' or rather a bait, it's still defamation.

So what should have been asked. Is that bottle of wine yours?

I can see notices going up in supermarket or on the doors, 'please don't place, personal items on the shelves'. Either that or we are going to get to the stage of having to sign agreement forms on the way in.

givyjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

So the scammer/thief is the beneficiary. Just because that's always the way it's been, doesn't make it right.

No, because there are defamation laws which apply to these scenarios. You do realize this same law/principle covers genuine people who have been falsely accused of stealing? (and not engaging in some kind of scam)

givyjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

She was asked if she paid for the item. Hardly a serious accusation of theft. This is just a scammer who's been rewarded by the system.

It doesn't matter if it's 'serious' or not, you and others seem to be incapable of grasping this fact. The shop left themselves open to being sued, sure it sucks in this case, but that's the harsh reality of what can happen if you do what they did.

mfceiling

Wow!! Just before christmas I was in a shop and picked up a couple of items and paid for them. Went to another shop 2 doors down to get something else. At the till the guy (think he might have been eastern european) pointed at the 2 items under my arm and said "and those". "Got them down there"..."ah, ok"

I could be 20k better off!!

FML

namloc1980

givyjoe wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it's 'serious' or not, you and others seem to be incapable of grasping this fact. The shop left themselves open to being sued, sure it sucks in this case, but that's the harsh reality of what can happen if you do what they did.

The customer picked up an item off the shelf and didn't pay for it. The shop assistant asked if it had been paid for - reasonably assuming that as the customer had picked it up off the shelf in that shop that it was her intention to buy it. But somehow the assistant in this case needed to be aware that the customer actually bought the item elsewhere and rather bizarrely left it on the shelf in the shop with similar items before picking it up again. Sorry but that to me is bonkers, and no amount of "the shop left themselves open to this" nonsense will change that.

Omackeral

mfceiling wrote: »

Wow!! Just before christmas I was in a shop and picked up a couple of items and paid for them. Went to another shop 2 doors down to get something else. At the till the guy (think he might have been eastern european) pointed at the 2 items under my arm and said "and those". "Got them down there"..."ah, ok"

I could be 20k better off!!

FML

Lucky you included that part or I'd be lost.

Seve OB

I hope it was a really nice and expensive bottle of wine. I hope she goes home and celebrates in style, savouring said wine from a really nice crystal glass. An of course I hope it goes down the wrong way and she chokes on it.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Madness. Why in the world would they settle this?
Surely asking if someone paid for their product is not defamation.



No they dont need harsher sentences for fraudsters, they just need to stop siding with people who make stupid claims.

Even if it was ruled that what he did was defamation 20k is crazy. She should have been given a free bottle of wine and told to jog on.

The thing is once there is a legal claim made against you, you have to defend yourself. Even a stonewall stupid claim, you have to defend it. That means getting a solicitor, barrister etc. It will be months or even years before the claim gets anywhere near a court or settlement discussions. Do you know how easy it is to go into a solicitors and bring a claim against some shop that you may well haev never been in? Shop will still have to defend themselves There comes a time when it makes more financial sense to pay it off just to make it go away.

Look we don't know what went down. Did the shop keeper really just ask if she paid for it, or did they really say stop thief and call the cops in front of loads of people... we just don't know. But it shouldn't matter one way or another, all she had to do was say, I'm no thief, I bought it down the raod and here is my receipt. A humble apology should of been all that was required, despite it being an obvious set up, I'm not so sure I would have given her a free bottle of wine....... unless of course it was poured over her

Nobody sided with this chancer, except of course I'm sure she probably had Jimmy McGill on the case for her! It was a stupid claim, but it was a claim none the less and that's the problem. They need to stop allowing people to make stupid claims.

There should be some sort of application process that someone making a claim like this should have to go through before they can actually bring a claim. And cases like this should be hung out to dry and the claiment needs to be told to cop the F*** on.

CrankyHaus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I'm not aware of courts finding defamation occurred where staff merely asked if somebody paid for something, though I'm open to correction.

I kinda agree that I'm not even sure the case passes the basic requirements, much less that any award would have been significant. Even the classic "alarm goes off" cases of the 2000s were all worth only a few grand, and that was pretty much telling the entire shop that the person had stolen items.

ford2600

Deleted User wrote: »

I kinda agree that I'm not even sure the case passes the basic requirements, much less that any award would have been significant. Even the classic "alarm goes off" cases of the 2000s were all worth only a few grand, and that was pretty much telling the entire shop that the person had stolen items.

I've seen two cases run in past 2 years (same judge), the most recent where the Plaintiff was asked had she paid for a drink (soft drink). That was the height of her case.

She got 20,000 from judge.

I spoke to a different barrister after case and a retail client of his, is effectively letting people steal as it's cheaper that the defamation costs.

Sue Pa Key Pa

namloc1980 wrote: »

Insurance companies will gladly payout, so they can then hike up everyone's premiums.

Would you give over? Insurers pay out because it is a cover provided in most retail policies to cover the shop owners costs when he or his staff cock up. There are now gangs of scammers attempting this on unsuspecting shop assistants and the 'right's' of these people are being ably and vigorously asserted by their legal representatives. Defending 'snowflakes' is the new nice little earner

ford2600

ford2600 wrote: »

I've seen two cases run in past 2 years (same judge), the most recent where the Plaintiff was asked had she paid for a drink (soft drink). That was the height of her case.

She got 20,000 from judge.

I spoke to a different barrister after case and a retail client of his, is effectively letting people steal as it's cheaper that the defamation costs.

Who was the Judge?

Here's a claim that was not only dismissed, but costs awarded against the Plaintiff too...

http://www.thejournal.ie/baby-buggy-defamation-2454881-Nov2015/

listermint

Well looks like once again the Judiciary in this country are out of touch with their interpretation of the law. One fool of a judge puts a ruling out and he sets a precedent.

Ridiculous judges.

razorblunt

Jesus wept, that's atrocious.

Mint Sauce

So tell me this. What if I innocently went into the shop after her, picked up the two bottles of wine, thinking they were for sale, successfully paid for them, and walked out.

Accused of stealing her property?

Seve OB

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So tell me this. What if I innocently went into the shop after her, picked up the two bottles of wine, thinking they were for sale, successfully paid for them, and walked out.

Accused of stealing her property?

lol, probably

skinny90

Why is the lady in question not named and shamed?

Samuel T. Cogley

People misunderstanding settlements and precedent as usual I see.

BrokenArrows

ford2600 wrote: »

I've seen two cases run in past 2 years (same judge), the most recent where the Plaintiff was asked had she paid for a drink (soft drink). That was the height of her case.

She got 20,000 from judge.

I spoke to a different barrister after case and a retail client of his, is effectively letting people steal as it's cheaper that the defamation costs.

Ill have to remember this.
If i ever get asked for a receipt ill be rolling in cash.

astrofool

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

People misunderstanding settlements and precedent as usual I see.

I don't really think so, but would be good to see a blustering explanation from you on this point. The more hyperbolae the better!

It will also be fun to see how much you misunderstand the case and the reaction to it.

Samuel T. Cogley

astrofool wrote: »

I don't really think so, but would be good to see a blustering explanation from you on this point. The more hyperbolae the better!

It will also be fun to see how much you misunderstand the case and the reaction to it.

I'm having that too much fun watching all the misunderstandings and rules of precedent informed by three episodes of law and order I'm afraid. But if you like you can give a concise and well thought out explanation of the above if you like...

I'm sure you'll understand why tomato plants explain why precedent is being misinterpreted here.

Allinall

listermint wrote: »

Well looks like once again the Judiciary in this country are out of touch with their interpretation of the law. One fool of a judge puts a ruling out and he sets a precedent.

Ridiculous judges.

There was no judge involved.

More's the pity.