DEFAMATION. Lack of Evidence Defeats Claim

A mother and daughter sought to change a pair of shoes in the Christian Louboutin Boutique in Brown Thomas. The daughter claimed that the shoes had been a gift from her boyfriend, but they were the wrong size. The plaintiffs sought to change the pair of shoes which cost €675.

The shop assistant examined the presented shoes but was suspicious of their make and did not believe that they were of the kind sold by the store. 

It was pleaded by the mother and daughter, who were both plaintiffs, that the assistant said ‘they were a different shade to the ones we sell. No, they do not look right and I am definitely not changing them …they do not look authentic’.

In the discussion between the mother, daughter and shop assistant, the judge observed that the mother was agitated and was the first to have introduced an issue of the shoes possibly bring ‘mock’ and shouting in a loud voice.

The judge noted that the plaintiff daughter who said that her boyfriend had bought her the shoes as an anniversary gift, albeit in the wrong size, had not given evidence of the alleged defamatory words in her claim and that this created a difficulty for her.

The judge noted ‘overall, it is evident that the mother caused a scene and imputed the word ’mock’ into the verbal exchange between her and a staff member in the shop.’

The judge further observed from phone recordings of what had been said during the shop dispute, that the shop assistant sounded eminently helpful and reasonable while protecting her employer’s merchandise with many other people in the shop at the time. However, the incident happened during Covid lockdown and that the shop had a strict regime of allowing a maximum of four masked customers into its shop at any one time. 

The shop assistant disputed that she used the word ‘authentic’ but had examined the shoes to ensure they had not been worn or damaged because if they had they would be unsellable.

She said the shop had a policy of exchange on the presentation of receipt of purchase but that the plaintiffs were unable to provide same.

On the lack of evidence by both plaintiffs, the judge dismissed their cases with costs.

McGinley & McGinley v Christian Louboutin Circuit Court (His Hon Judge James O’Donohue) 19 February 2025.