The High Court has allowed April Gallagher’s appeal in her defamation claim against O’Brien Retail Concepts Limited, finding that staff at the company’s off-licence accused her of shoplifting in front of other customers. The court did not determine damages, instead giving the parties an opportunity to try to agree an amount.
The case arose from a visit on 3 April 2020, when Gallagher and her sister-in-law, Kathleen Gallagher, went to the shop to buy wine. The company’s defence was that staff directed the disputed remarks at Kathleen, not April. The High Court heard the case as a de novo appeal, with witnesses giving evidence afresh after April had lost in the Circuit Court.
Justice Micheál O’Higgins found that an employee, Nadine Maguire, said “management said you’re barred” in the direction of both women. He also found that other staff told them they had been shoplifting on St Patrick’s Day, or words to that effect. The judge accepted April’s evidence that a staff member showed her a CCTV still on a phone, and that April was told the accusation referred to Kathleen after she said the pictured person was neither of them.
The judge said the words were capable of referring to April and, viewed objectively, did refer to her. Customers in the shop would have seen and heard the women being addressed together, heard references to being barred and to shoplifting, and seen April deny that she was the person in the photograph. The court was satisfied that customers were likely to have understood April was being accused of involvement in shoplifting.
The judgment noted that the company did not claim the words were true, that either woman had shoplifted, or that the remarks were protected by qualified privilege. It also found the public approach conflicted with the company’s written policy, which said suspected shoplifters should be approached discreetly after leaving the shop. The judge described April as embarrassed and humiliated, with the impact worsened because the shop was local to her.
The court also recorded gaps in the company’s evidence, including missing CCTV, a still image and till receipts, and the absence of two employees involved in the incident. The judge said the company could not explain what happened to the CCTV footage.
In allowing the appeal, the judge said any damages award must be reasonable and proportionate, noting the publication was limited to no more than four or five customers. The ruling resolves liability; the amount of damages remained for agreement or further determination.