CSI MANUFACTURING v DUNN & BRADSTREET: Coleman v MGN round II

Mr Coleman was unfortunate enough to have his picture publicized next to an article about hooligans and drunkards by the Daily Mirror in 2003. That picture was also allegedly publicized in the internet edition of the said distribution, open to the worldwide public by subscription – but did that actually result in absolute geographical restriction? (read below). Mr Coleman claimed damages for defamation, damages for breach of contract, negligence, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty. 9 years later, the Supreme Court could not be furnished with evidence of the internet publication by the plaintiff (and obviously hard to ascertain the defendant kept an archive of publications so old for the sake of discovery), and therefore, since both the defendant and the paper’s audience were restricted to the UK, it lacked jurisdiction to decide in favour of the plaintiff.

Passing Off: Little Pots of Doom

Update 14/12/2013: The High Court judgment disclosing Brennan Bakeries used another packaging/supplying company (Doyle’s Quality Products) has now been published here, and can be discussed openly hereafter.

Everybody should be acquainted with the infamous, by now, bread wars (McCambridge v Brennan (2011), affirmed in the SC), where Brennan Bakeries’ stoneground bread was held capable of passing off as that of McCambridge, against the Consumer Protection Act, 2007. In the said case the products were seemingly the same, same type of bread, same shape… and so was the packaging.

S71 (2) of the 2007 Act gives any person the right to come forth and put the blame on a product, if they feel they have been deceived. That alone should make producers very cautious as to the looks of their packaging; packaging companies should also be careful though, not to design similar packaging for clients that fall within the same production group. And the question has arisen, if someone has a claim in damages, taking all the facts into account, should packaging companies share the liability?

The Extent of the Duty of Care owed by a Driver.. any Driver?

Writing about legal matters without stepping on people’s toes is a formidable task, one I am probably not good at. I debated long and hard whether I should write about this case. Once more I mean no disrespect to anyone and welcome any corrections if I have erred in my views. This article is purely aiming at offering another perspective to the outcome.

In Doody v Clarke [2013] IEHC 505 it was held that although a driver undoubtedly owes a duty of care to the public, his duty to control the acts of the passengers in his vehicle is analogous to the steps that he needs to take in order to impose such control; put any hazardous item away – order the windows to be put up – stop the car – put the passengers out of the car if necessary, were considered ‘too extreme’ by the trial judge.

Grrrrrrr…eyhound!

Until Greyhound was taken over by the private sector (with the addition of a couple months to get everything in order) every Monday was ‘Nightmare Monday’; I came home to a pile of rubbish in my front garden that I had to manually remove, no matter if it was daylight or pitch dark, if it was sunny or freezing, if I had the strength to bend over twenty times, after a long day, to pick up what was in somebody else’s bin the whole week before.

That made me mumble a lot, I am sure that quite a few people reading this now will be holding their heads thinking ‘oh no’, knowing what I am going to write about already. I fought very hard not to bring this issue up, and I ultimately decided to remain silent in fear of defamation. After spending my entire evening cleaning up what I have been looking at for the past three days, defamation right now seems to be waving from a long, long distance.

There is a remedy to this problem;