A JUDGE HAS thrown out a defamation claim in the Circuit Civil Court brought by a couple who attempted to sue Smyths Toys and a security company after they were asked whether they had paid for a car seat.

Mortgage underwriter Kate Smith, of Swiss Gardens, Swiss Cottage Apartments, Santry, Dublin 9, and fitness trainer Graham Ward, Macroom Road, Coolock, Dublin 17, had sued Smyths Toys and RFC Security for both defamation of character and false imprisonment.

Smith told the court she and her partner Ward had been together in Smyths Toystore at Airside Retail Park, Swords, on 15 September 2021, and they had brought with them a child’s car seat that they owned and for which they wished to buy a component.

Judge John Martin heard that they wished to consult with the toy store’s staff to find out what particular component they needed to buy.

He said it was perfectly legitimate for shopkeepers to ask people leaving their premises in situations that are in any way suspicious, “have you paid for that?”

They had been told the necessary component had not been in stock at the store and had been advised to go the Blanchardstown branch and inquire there.

Smith and Ward both told the court that as they left the shop, a security man had said to them: “You did not pay for that, put it back.”

They had been carrying the child’s seat that they had initially brought into the store with them for consultation purposes.

They also claimed they had been prevented from leaving the store until CCTV had been checked by a manager, and were subsequently let go.

Both claimed the alleged defamatory words were spoken in the presence of other customers and loud enough for them to have heard.

Barrister Elizabeth-Jane Walsh, counsel for Smyths Toys and RFC Security, of Feltrim Road, Swords, told Judge Martin her clients denied that Smith and Ward had been accused of attempting to steal the child’s car seat.

Walsh, who appeared with Kennedys Law Solicitors, said it was both defendants’ case that Smith and Ward had attempted to leave through a locked barrier and, when told they could not exit that way, said to the security man: “You think we stole this, don’t you?”

Dismissing the defamation claim, Judge Martin said he had no doubt that what caught the security man’s attention was the possibility of someone trying to do a “legger” out through the locked barrier and that he had inquired of them what they were doing and had they paid for the item they were holding.

“I am quite satisfied there is no defamation and no evidence of malice here whatsoever and, with regard to false imprisonment, in stopping people to ask whether or not they had paid for something there is, of course, going to be a time lag,” Judge Martin said.

He felt Smith, a heavily pregnant woman, and her partner, could not have left the store because the manager had gone to check the CCTV footage and they had been left standing there.

For that they were entitled to compensation, but the court could not award much. He awarded both €2,500 each with district court costs.

Under proposed new civil reform legislation, such cases may be heard at District Court level when that court’s jurisdiction is increased to €20,000 and maximum levels of compensation for defamation are reduced.

Currently, defamation cases can be pursued in the Circuit Civil Court to a maximum of €75,000 and specifically attract circuit court costs. In the vast majority of successful defamation cases in the circuit court awards average around €7,500 only.