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 Lidl store and RFC Security.

Eric Swift, of Glenayle Road, Raheny, Dublin 5, claimed he had been publicly accused by security staff at Lidl in Baldoyle, Dublin, of having not paid for a bottle of wine during a brief shopping trip in May 2023.

Judge Geoffrey Shannon, in throwing out Swift’s claim, said he had told the court that he had picked up a bottle of wine in the alcohol aisle and had put it in his bag but had then changed his mind and had put it back on the shelf.

After he had gone to join his wife, Geraldine, who had been waiting for him in the car park, a uniformed security guard had hurriedly approached him and had loudly declared he was required to return to the supermarket on suspicion of theft.

Judge Shannon said Lidl admitted the guard had asked Swift to return to the store but claimed the request had been made discreetly and that at no time had the security man alleged theft, and that the store was protected by qualified privilege.

Swift had told the Circuit Civil Court he had only called in for a jar of coffee and had put one in his bag and paid for it. He felt his wife would enjoy some wine later and had put a bottle in his bag. He had texted his wife in the car park and she had told him she did not want any alcohol. As a result, he had put the bottle back on the shelf.

He told the court he had been garda vetted for his trusted position with vulnerable people and after having returned to the store had been dealt with in front of a number of shoppers queueing and standing in the area. When he had shown the contents of his bag and the receipt for the coffee inside the store, the manager had apologised.

Barrister E.J. Walsh, for Lidl, had told Swift in cross-examination that the entire situation had been an unfortunate misunderstanding that was his fault for not having used a trolley or basket. The security guard had seen him put the wine in his bag but had been looking away when he had returned it to the shelf.

Security guard Can Uygunyoy said he had simply asked 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, in dismissing Swift’s claim, said he accepted that the evidence of all parties concerned had been 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 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,” Judge Shannon said.