An Enable Ireland caretaker and bus escort for people with disabilities has lost a damages claim for up to €75,000 for defamation of character against a Dublin Lidl store and a security firm.
Eric Swift, of Glenayle Road, Raheny, claimed he was publicly accused by security staff at Lidl in Baldoyle of having not paid for a bottle of wine in May 2023.
Dismissing the claim, Judge Geoffrey Shannon said Mr Swift told the court he had picked up a bottle of wine in the alcohol aisle and put it in his bag, but then changed his mind and put it back on the shelf.
After he had gone to join his wife, Geraldine, who was waiting for him in the car park, he said a uniformed security guard approached him and loudly declared he was required to return to the supermarket on suspicion of theft.
READ MORE
Judge Shannon said Lidl admitted the security guard asked Mr Swift to return to the store, but claimed the request was made discreetly and that the security man had not alleged theft and, regardless, the store was protected by qualified privilege.
Mr Swift told the Circuit Civil Court he went to get a jar of coffee and put one in his bag and paid for it. He then thought his wife would enjoy some wine later and put a bottle in his bag. He sent his wife a text and she replied to say she did not want any alcohol. Mr Swift then put the bottle back on the shelf.
He told the court he had been Garda vetted for his trusted position working with vulnerable people and after having returned to the store, the matter was dealt with in front of a number of other shoppers.
When he showed the contents of his bag and the receipt for the coffee, the manager apologised, he said.
Barrister EJ Walsh, for Lidl, told Mr Swift in cross-examination that the entire situation was an unfortunate misunderstanding that was his fault for not having used a trolley or basket.
The security guard saw him put the wine in his bag but was looking away when he returned it to the shelf.
Security guard Can Uygunyoy, working for RFC Security, said he simply asked Mr Swift if perhaps he had forgotten to pay for something. Part of his training was not to constantly stare at customers despite keeping them under observation and he had not seen him return the bottle to the shelf.
Judge Shannon said he accepted that the evidence of all parties concerned was truthful but found that the balance of credibility lay in the version of events outlined by the defence.
He said shopkeepers had a legal right to protect their property and the court accepted that the remarks made to Mr Swift were protected by qualified privilege, in that they had not been made with malice.
“I believe Mr Uygunyoy acted in the heat of the moment in that delay would obviously have been fatal to his chances of recovery of the wine which he believed had been taken, not having seen Mr Swift return it to the shelf,” he said.
