Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in defamation proceedings, dismisses two related appeals following unsuccessful Circuit Court proceedings (Riordan J) in which the plaintiffs alleged that they were defamed by comments made by a retail store security guard during a shopping trip on the defendant's premises, on the grounds that: 1) the plaintiffs' evidence that they did not notice a toy mask on a child's face (the son of one of the plaintiffs, who accompanied them into the store) for some five minutes prior to a store employee's arrival at the scene was "difficult to believe"; and 2) the evidence of an independent witness who was present at the scene completely counteracts the plaintiffs' evidence.
Defamation - two related appeals - two plaintiffs shopping in retail store being monitored by security guard as they shopped - child accompanied by plaintiffs took an item from store - difficult to believe plaintiffs did not see mask on child's face at material time - question of which version of events to believe - court does not accept plaintiffs' evidence that they did not notice mask until security arrived from original store - evidence of independent witness rebuts allegation by plaintiffs that security guard called women the 'biggest shoplifters in the city' - witnessed the child hand back mask - appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now