Cleaning firm and managing director sue Vodafone over newspaper advert

A CLEANING firm and its managing director are suing Vodafone and an ad company for defamation over a newspaper advertisement which featured images of its cleaning uniform.

Bernard McCauley and his commercial contract cleaning company Gros-venor Cleaning Services Ltd claim Vodafone’s advert depicted them as being dishonest, inefficient and trustworthy, and that the business was run in a manner detrimental to the interests of its clients.

They have brought proceedings against Vodafone Ireland Ltd, with a registered office at Mountainview, Leopardstown, Dublin 18, and advertising company DDFH&B Ltd and DDFH&B Communications Ltd, with registered offices at 3 Christ-church Square, Dublin 8.

On March 14, 2005, Vodafone published an ad for its fixed-line business, produced by DDFH&B, in broadsheet newspapers and several trade magazines. The ad carried the tagline “Is your business spending more than it needs to?” and featured a photograph of five women cleaning a small office, each dressed in Gros-venor’s distinctive wine-coloured tunic uniform.

Mr McCauley claims he and his company’s reputations have been seriously damaged and that they have suffered considerable distress, embarrassment, loss, damage, inconvenience and expense.

Vodafone denies the claims.

At a hearing before Mr Justice Elizabeth Dunne yesterday, Jim O’Callaghan SC, for Mr McCauley and Grosvenor, said his clients complained to Vodafone and DDFH&B after the ad was published. Solicitors for both companies replied, explaining that the tunics had been provided by an independent props company.

Both companies agreed to apologise and said they had not intended to refer to the cleaning company directly or indirectly. They also agreed to pull all future ads featuring the image, and to hand over all existing photographs.

Mr McCauley later issued proceedings, alleging the companies “falsely and maliciously” caused the ad to be published.

Mr McCauley said he believed his firm suffered a loss as a result of the ad as its performance dipped during the following year.

Questioned by Paul O’Higgins SC, for the defendants, he agreed that turnover increased in the year following publication of the ad.

However, he said this was due to an increase in the minimum wage and his taking a salary cut of €35,000 due to the company’s poor performance.

The case continues.