A €75,000 claim by a woman, who claimed she was defamed and imprisoned in a Dublin toy store after buying a basket full of Christmas presents for her children, has been thrown out in the Circuit Civil Court.
Judge John O’Connor told barrister E.J. Walsh, defence counsel for Smyths Toys, that he accepted Rachel Kenny’s perception of what had happened in the company’s Carrickmines store differed from what actually took place and did not constitute defamation or unlawful imprisonment.
Ms Walsh, who appeared with Kennedys Law Solicitors for Smyths and RFC Security, Swords, Co Dublin, said in a full defence of Ms Kenny’s claims that the defendants accepted she had paid for toys in the store and had valid receipts for them.
The court heard there were unusual circumstances in that Ms Kenny’s purchases were not bagged and were being wheeled toward the entrance in a store basket when security asked her for the receipts.
Fontaines DC’s Grian Chatten: ‘Romance took a lot out of us. It was like a bomb went off, and then that silence’
A day in the Bere Island school where teachers commute by ferry and classes take place on the beach
Nicky English: The rules that hurling could, and should, steal from football immediately
Summer strawberries: Two desserts that celebrate the defining fruit of the season
Both defendants denied that Ms Kenny, of Corballis Domaine, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow, was stopped by a security guard asking loudly ‘did you pay for that?’ and ‘do you have a receipt’.
Judge O’Connor heard that a RFC Security worker discreetly asked if they could see Ms Kenny’s receipt, which was presented and reviewed by a manager. No apology was offered on the grounds that no defamation or false imprisonment had taken place.
Ms Kenny said that on November 18th, 2021, she bought the toys at Smyths in Carrickmines as Christmas presents for her children. She claimed she suffered upset, distress and humiliation because of the incident, particularly because she knew some of the customers in the store.
Judge O’Connor struck out Ms Kenny’s claim but made no order for legal costs against her. He said her view of what had occurred differed from what had actually happened and was not defamation.
