Lidl Wins Defamation Case Filed by Disability Worker
Court sides with store in dispute over alleged theft accusation.
A damages claim against a Dublin Lidl store and its security firm has been dismissed, after a caretaker and bus escort for Enable Ireland, **Eric Swift**, claimed defamation of character. The judge ruled in favor of the store, citing qualified privilege.
The Allegation
**Eric Swift**, residing on Glenayle Road, Raheny, alleged that security personnel at the Lidl in Baldoyle publicly accused him of stealing a bottle of wine in May 2023. He sought €75,000 in damages.
Court’s Findings
Judge **Geoffrey Shannon** dismissed the claim. **Mr. Swift** testified he placed a wine bottle in his bag, then returned it to the shelf after his wife declined it. A uniformed security guard then approached him in the parking lot, demanding he return to the store on suspicion of theft.
Lidl admitted the request was made but insisted it was done discreetly, without any theft accusation. They further argued the store was protected by qualified privilege. A recent study shows that retail theft has been on the rise, with shoplifting incidents increasing by 15% in the past year (Central Statistics Office, Ireland).
Conflicting Accounts
**Mr. Swift** stated he also placed a jar of coffee in his bag, which he paid for. After his wife declined the wine, he returned it to the shelf. Upon returning to the store, the issue was addressed publicly. The manager apologized after **Mr. Swift** displayed his bag’s contents and the coffee receipt.
Defense Argument
According to **EJ Walsh**, barrister representing Lidl, the incident was an unfortunate misunderstanding caused by **Mr. Swift** not using a trolley or basket. The security guard saw **Mr. Swift** put the wine in his bag but missed him returning it.
Security Guard’s Testimony
**Can Uygunyoy**, a security guard employed by RFC Security, testified he simply inquired if **Mr. Swift** had forgotten to pay for something. He explained that his training involved observing customers without staring, and he did not see **Mr. Swift** return the bottle.
Judge’s Ruling
Judge **Shannon** accepted the honesty of all testimonies but favored the defense’s version of events. He stated that shopkeepers have the right to protect their property. The remarks to **Mr. Swift** were protected by qualified privilege because they were made without malice.
Judge **Shannon** added: “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.”
