A DUBLIN SCHOOL teacher has launched an appeal against a ruling by the Circuit Civil Court last week regarding defamation and breach of duty actions he had taken against a north Dublin McDonald’s outlet.
Christian Morris (44) had brought the initial action against McDonald’s, Donaghmede, for alleged defamation of his character and an alleged breach of duty towards him while he was a customer in the restaurant on 21 June 2015.
The plaintiff had represented himself in the action. In ruling against Morris, Circuit Court president Justice Raymond had said that the defendants were entitled to an order for costs against him.
The precise reasons behind the appeal to be divulged in court are as yet not known. In appealing a Circuit Court verdict, it is only necessary for the appellant to state their intention to appeal within 10 days of that ruling – the reasons for the appeal are not required.
Speaking to TheJournal.ie, Morris said that he would be “appealing the entire verdict”.
“I would advise anyone thinking of suing anyone in this country – don’t sue unless you are happy for it to end up in the newspapers,” he said.
He added that “anyone who tries to foresee a court verdict is a very unwise individual”.
I am going to do my best. If you ever hear someone say that a trial is open and shut, it is time to be sceptical.
McDonald’s Ireland meanwhile said it had “no comment to make while the case is ongoing” when asked for reaction.
Ruling
In the original case, Morris had claimed that he was verbally abused by youths in the restaurant after engaging in an altercation with a security guard over his throwing of serviettes onto an adjacent table.
That altercation led to his being called “a paedophile and a faggot” by the teenage boys in question, one of whom had subsequently returned to the restaurant and stolen his phone.
In his ruling on the €75,000 claim on 26 February, Justice Groarke said that the restaurant could not be held accountable for what “an entirely different third party may say about the plaintiff”.
He said, regarding the claim for damages regarding breach of duty, that the behaviour of the teenagers in question would not have merited a security guard locking the door against them.
Comments are closed for legal reasons
With reporting by Ray Managh
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say