Two more cases that show up the absurdity of our compo culture

By Ryle Dwyer IN June the Earl of Desmond Hotel on the outskirts of Tralee had a problem. At 3 o'clock one morning some Travellers pulled into private parking lot in front of the hotel with their caravans. They indicated that they planned to stay there, unless the hotel gave them 2,000.

When the manager, Michael Mannix, called the gardaí, they were helpful but they explained that their hands were tied. The hotel needed a court injunction to get the travellers to move from the parking area and that would cost about 7,000 euro, and if some of their friends did the same thing the hotel would have to obtain another injunction costing a further 7,000 euro. Thus in the economics of our crazy litigation culture, the manager was being offered a bargain at just 2,000 euro to get rid of them.

"I was highly abused by these people who came onto the hotel's private property, but I wasn't going to pay them one brown penny even if they stayed for 12 months," he told Donal Hickey of the Irish Examiner. "They threatened to set dogs on me and told me they'd break every window in the hotel."

This apparently involved extortion and intimidation, but the gardaí felt compelled to wait on the directions of a court. If they need the permission of a court to act, there is something radically wrong. This is not just a localised phenomenon; it is a national plague.

The Earl of Desmond Hotel refused to pay. When some of the travellers left in their vans later that morning, the hotel closed the gates and manned them with security who refused to allow the vans back in until they agreed to move the caravans. In this case one wonders if the hotel ran the risk of being sued for racial discrimination. Of course, that sounds crazy, but no crazier than what had happened already. Little over twenty-four hours after arriving, the Travellers left with their caravans without being paid any money.

The same kind of extortionist ploy could be used against any number of businesses. If they are compelled to protect themselves by hiring security people, how long will it before gangsters muscle in with another form of extortion the protection racket? This is already happening in Northern Ireland, where paramilitary gangs are extorting money from businesses for protection against themselves. If such extortion is permitted to continue, there will be no end to the forms it might take.

In dismissing a case brought in the Circuit Court in Tralee by a Nigerian national last November, Judge Harvey Kenny said that "there were no grounds at all" for bringing the case. He awarded costs to the Aqua Dome and suggested that the gardaí should investigate the case.

On March 14, 2000, Sulaimon Awesu, a Nigerian national, took out a monthly membership of the Aqua Dome in Tralee. That same day he said that he cut his toe in the pool. The toe was dressed and he demanded not only his membership money back but also monetary compensation for his suffering. His membership money was returned to him and a taxi was provided to take him to the hospital, but he took the taxi to his residence instead. Later he called an ambulance to take him to casualty.

Next day he returned to the Aqua Dome and again demanded money for his suffering. The staff did not have the authority to pay out money in such circumstances, but the man was told that the Aqua Dome would get him whatever medical treatment he needed. Awesu then went to the gardaí, who told him that, as there was no criminal offence, he would have to speak to a solicitor.

After the case was thrown out of the Circuit Court, Awesu appealed to the High Court. Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman listened to the case made by the plaintiff's legal team last week and then unceremoniously dismissed the appeal on the grounds that there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of the Aqua Dome. He awarded court costs to the Aqua Dome and also commented that the case had "unfortunately occupied the time of two courts wholly without justification".

Mr Justice Hardiman was further critical of the calling of the ambulance. "By no stretch of the imagination could the injury described require an ambulance," the judge told the court.

"We are talking about an injury of the most inconsiderable kind."

At present the Aqua Dome estimates that this case will have cost it 10,000 euro in legal fees, not to mention the amount of time wasted by staff in the whole matter. Of course, it was awarded costs but the Manager, Kieran Ruttledge, estimates that the "chances of recovering any money from Mr Awesu are slim as we believe he is not in gainful employment".

Legal and insurance people will tell you that the Aqua Dome authorities made a mistake in not offering money at the outset. They could have saved themselves a considerable amount of that 10,000. But in the process they would have been feeding and fostering the climate of legalised extortion.

The Aqua Dome has lost a considerable amount of money by doing the right and responsible thing. Their insurance costs have doubled. Their public liability insurance, which started at £32,000, is now 88,000 annually and they must pay the first 60,000 in claims. Thus, in effect, their public liability insurance could cost as much as 148,000 this year. In the years since it opened the Aqua Dome has never actually made a claim on its public liability insurance, because it has never paid out in excess of the amount that it is committed to pay. Yet its insurance has more than doubled. The cost of all this is being passed on to customers of the Aqua Dome. Some people are naturally complaining about the price rises.

It is the honest law-abiding customers who end up paying for all of this initially, but ultimately everyone will pay, because it contributes to the rising cost of living and our growing uncompetitiveness, especially in our tourism sector. We already have the highest cost of living in the European Union.

The Aqua Dome was essentially built as a community project, with local people contributing around £2m, in order to provide jobs and build up the tourist infrastructure. (I bought £100 in shares in the project as a contribution or, rather, as an investment in the community, not something on which I ever expected any personal return.)

The litigation cancer must be stopped before it bankrupts not just community projects like the Aqua Dome, but the country itself.

Why should the Aqua Dome lose over 10,000 euro on this case? If Sulaimon Awesu is able to pay his legal team, that money should first go towards the Aqua Dome's legal team. On the other hand, if his legal team took the case on a no foal, no fee basis, they should be liable for the Aqua Dome's costs, because they pressed the case.

The plaintiff's solicitor has been very successful in handling personal injury cases, so he must surely have recognised the weakness of this particular client's case. After all in the opinion of a Circuit Court Judge, "there were no grounds at all" for bringing the case, while a High Court Judge concluded that it was "wholly without justification."

If the plaintiff is unable to pay the costs, the lawyers who acted on his behalf in taking this unjustifiable action, should be held responsible for all the costs in the case. That would be one way of cutting down on unjustifiable litigation, or at least of ensuring that totally innocent people were not penalised.