Latest news with #andGoliath
The Courier
02-05-2025
- Business
- The Courier
Perth man wins £5.5k from Inverkeithing firm at tribunal
A Perth man says he was left 'afraid' to go to work after homophobic slurs and 'childish victimisation' from colleagues. Sean McGhie, 36, won £5,500 after taking his former employer, RHT Scotland – based at Belleknowes Industrial Estate in Inverkeithing, Fife – to a tribunal. Employment judge James Hendry found the firm, which specialises in office removals and installations, was liable after an employee shouted: 'Where are you, you gay c***?' at Sean. Speaking to The Courier, Sean has revealed the personal toll after he took on the firm in what he describes as a 'David vs Goliath' employment tribunal. He said: 'I am ecstatic, it took seven-and-a-half weeks to find out if I had won and I was climbing the walls with anticipation from the moment I first stuck my own neck out to complain. 'I have to keep pinching myself.' Sean represented himself throughout the tribunal and – despite the firm hiring both a solicitor and barrister from England – was found to be due compensation for injury to feelings. The events covered by the tribunal happened in November 2023 and followed a disagreement between Sean and his supervisor, referred to as BD, over a late finishing time. The argument resulted in him being called a homophobic slur and the incident was dealt with by the firm, with BD disciplined. Sean also reported the incident to police and BD later pled guilty at Glasgow Sheriff Court and was fined £240. Sean could not include this incident as part of his tribunal claim because it happened outwith the time period considered by the tribunal, but it was used as background for his subsequent complaints. He said: 'It ended up being a David and Goliath as I had to fight against the company. 'It felt like David and Goliath, I am just wee Sean McGhie who only wanted to get to work and come home in the same state I left in.' The tribunal judgement said: 'He (Sean) makes no secret of the fact that he is gay. 'He was comfortable discussing aspects of his sexuality with fellow employees.' The tribunal said RHT Scotland – an office removals and installation firm – had 'failed to detect a pattern of behaviour' in investigating incidents involving the supervisor and Sean. This included BD allowing an automatic door to shut as Sean was approaching, calling him a 'grass' and stating 'it f****** stinks in here' while looking at him. The supervisor also excluded Sean after buying a staff lunch from a burger van. The judgement said: 'This was on one level childish (such as the exclusion from food bought at the burger van) but coming from the claimant's supervisor, who held a position of authority over him, and given the background circumstances in which these behaviours occurred, they are not wholly trivial.' On another occasion, a different colleague, referred to as AR, shouted a homophobic slur from a lift. Sean says he was left 'mortified' by the comment, which he says was heard by other people. He said: 'I actually heard people gasp and I was mortified and wanted the ground to swallow me up.' He also reported this incident to police and was later signed off work with stress. Police say nobody has been arrested or charged in connection, but a report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal. He also submitted a formal complaint about AR, however, the firm decided there 'was no basis for the complaints made'. Sean was dismissed by the company on January 9 2024 due to claims he had breached confidentiality by speaking about his complaint against BD and had failed to make the company aware of a previous court conviction. He was awarded £3,000 in compensation for the incident involving AR and £2,500 for the 'acts of victimisation' from his supervisor. Sean says he suffered with mental and physical problems as a result of the experience, including insomnia and psoriasis, a chronic skin condition. He said: 'I loved the job, my brother had recently died when I got it and it was something different. 'I was able to work through my grief as I was experiencing life in a new way. 'It was different from what I had done before – working in a call centre for SSE. 'For the first time in my life I was doing a manly job and was able to be myself. 'I was building desks and listening to Ru Paul music. 'I didn't expect to be attacked as I was really enjoying it and thought I was doing it all. 'I haven't been back to work but I am taking some time now, enjoying myself, and then I will start to look for something.' RHT Scotland declined to comment when contacted by The Courier.
Daily Mail
30-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Welsh clothing designer loses 'David and Goliath' court battle against fashion giant Boohoo.com after judge rules 'copied' swimsuits had 'low originality'
A clothing designer has lost her 'David and Goliath' court battle against Boohoo over claims it copied her clothing designs. In a chastening ruling, a judge said Sonia Edwards' garments had 'low originality' while also saying it was unlikely the fast-fashion giant was looking at her social media channels as he Instagram account only had 268 followers. The 53-year-old, from Newport, Gwent, had for years accused Boohoo and four linked companies of using her designs. She took the firm to London 's High Court over the alleged infringement of five of her designs in a bid for compensation. Ms Edwards also wanted to prevent the companies from importing or selling items which she claimed were copies of her designs. She also wanted a court declaration that Boohoo had infringed the design rights of her company, Cwtchy Cwtchy. But Judge Tom Micheson KC has thrown out her case saying: 'The stark truth is that there are also only so many ways to design clothing to fit the human body.' The self-taught designer began her career in 2010, exhibiting at the Clothes Show Live in 2011, where her signature 'Infinite' multiway bikini top first hit the catwalk. Celebrities, including Liss Jones from The Voice and Welsh media personality Lateysha Grace, have worn her designs, while her work has also featured in Vogue. Judge Micheson found that despite ' that designs are copied from social media on occasion' by Boohoo companies, it was unlikely hers was as she 'had just 268 Instagram followers in 2020'. The companies Ms Edwards sued alongside were Ltd, Nasty Gal Ltd, Miss Pap UK Ltd, and Debenhams Brands Ltd. The alleged infringements related to five designs marketed by Boohoo or the linked companies: a halter neck bikini top; rib organza mesh puff sleeve top; Taylor velvet ruched midi skirt; a twist front skirt, and leather front ruched leggings. Presenting her own case against a team of lawyers representing Boohoo and the other companies she told the judge she began to notice more of her designs proliferating online during the Covid lockdown. Focusing on her 'infinite bikini' line, she said the garment could be 'tied in lots of different ways,' alleging that a similar item has been marketed by one of the defending companies, Nasty Gal Ltd. At issue with the bikini were several telltale features which she said betray the products marketed by Nasty Gal as copied from her work. This included a top strap that forms 'one piece' without fastening and two front breast panels with 'openings at the top and bottom allowing the strap to be passed through'. SONIA'S DESIGN: Skirt designed by Ms Edwards, which she alleges has been copied by the fashion giant BOOHOO'S DESIGN: The Taylor velvet ruched midi skirt However, Boohoo's KC, Andrew Norris, argued that the alleged similarities are not specific enough to be protected under copyright law. 'These features do not describe protectable shape and configuration,' he said. 'They are concepts and methods of construction and are not protectable features in design law in accordance with the Act.' Adding that the concept of a 'multiway' bikini was 'well established,' the barrister claimed there was nothing unique about the disputed design, noting that its 'selling point' for Ms Edwards was the fact that its wearer can change how they wear it according to their whims. 'Whether the top strap forms one piece or is two pieces - i.e. which way the ends of the strap go - is the wearer's choice and is not the shape or configuration of the design,' he said. Giving his ruling, the judge said: 'The claimant has been complaining for a number of years about the alleged copying of her clothing designs by various big fashion brands, including ASOS, Missguided, Moschino and Shein. Her complaints against boohoo have also been going on for some years.' Dealing with the bikini, the judge threw out Ms Edwards' claim, saying the opportunity for any copying was 'extremely limited,' citing the 'relatively low profile' of Ms Edwards' social media channels. 'The contemporaneous material shows that the claimant had only a handful of likes and comments on the Facebook pages showing her designs over the relevant period. Her Instagram account Scrunchbooty had just 268 followers in 2020,' the judge said. He said it was more likely that someone would have come up with a similar design themselves without copying Ms Edwards' ideas. 'That is a function of the low originality of the claimant's is generic enough that other people in the industry are quite capable of coming up with the same design independently,' he said. 'For all these reasons and in spite of the that designs are copied from social media on occasion by the defendants, I reject the suggestion that the claimant's (bikini) has been copied in the present case.' He went on to dismiss the claims relating to the other garments too, finding that the 'defendants did not copy the claimant's designs.' 'I recognise that Ms Edwards will be disappointed in this outcome. She has campaigned for some time to shine a light on what she sees as injustice against the small designer in the fashion industry. 'I have no doubt that her grievances are sincerely held, but she has subjected the defendants and others to a torrent of complaints over a period of many years. 'Regrettably, the complaints that I have had to adjudicate are misdirected, either as a matter of fact or law, or both. 'I acknowledge that copying undoubtedly takes place within the fashion industry, particularly in fast fashion. Every time the defendants ask manufacturers to reproduce images found on social media, there is a risk of someone's design right being infringed. 'But the stark truth is that there are also only so many ways to design clothing to fit the human body. 'Given the enormous numbers of articles being churned out by the likes of the defendants each week, it is completely unsurprising that as a matter of chance, some of these resemble articles designed previously by others, including the claimant. 'And whilst the probability of chance reproduction in such circumstances is high, the likelihood of a fast fashion company using a social media feed with few followers published many years ago is low.
Daily Mail
21-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Battle to be the 'greatest showman': Circus ringmaster is embroiled in bitter legal row with Hollywood heavyweights over name
A circus manager says his defeat in a 'David and Goliath' style battle with a Hollywood film company has robbed him of his heritage. Kenny Darnell Jnr, 37, found himself fighting 20th Century Studios owned by Disney, earlier this year in a dispute over who could say they are the 'greatest showman' on earth. In 2018, he registered a website called ' two months before the movie producers obtained a trademark for the same phrase, a year after the release of their film 'The Greatest Showman.' Lawyers for 20th Century Studios, which made £33 million from the musical starring Hugh Jackman, argued Mr Darnell deliberately used the name to capitalise off the movie. But Mr Darnell, who was a professional aerial acrobat, claimed his family's 200 years of history in the business as Paulo's Circus meant the title 'greatest showman' was his birthright. Mr Darnell, speaking to the Telegraph, said: 'This isn't just a legal dispute, it's personal. 'It feels like my identity, my heritage is being stripped away by those who've made millions off a fantasy version of our world. This isn't about money. 'It's about history and it's about a family who's still fighting to preserve something real, something magical and something earned, not imagined in Hollywood but lived in sawdust rings across generations.' After refusing to handover the name of his website this February, Mr Darnell was dragged before 'Nominet UK', which regulates website names. The circus manager argued he had no intention of making money off or gaining more customers from using the same title of the film and was unaware of its release date. But the Hollywood lawyers argued it was impossible for Mr Darnell to be unaware of the film and suggested he might have sold the name on to make a profit. In a ruling by a Nominet expert, Mr Darnell was cleared of any suggestion that he would sell the name of the website on. However, he was found to have attempted to 'unfairly profit' from the trademark. The ruling said: 'On the balance of probabilities, Mr Darnell did attempt to profit unfairly from 20th Century Fox's [trade] mark by registering the disputed domain name at the peak of the movie's success ... for the likely purpose of attracting custom from people looking for the movie's website'. The finding added the name was 'likely to confuse people or businesses into believing that it is connected' to the film. The result of the dispute is that Mr Darnell must now 'transfer' his website name to 20th Century Studios. Mr Darnell pointed out that it is now seven years since he registered the website name, and it has taken that long for the dispute to emerge. He added: 'Seven years of silence, only to be accused of opportunism, of trying to profit off a name - if that had been my goal, why wouldn't I have sold it at the peak of the film's popularity?'
Telegraph
27-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Toxic Town, review: Netflix feels an odd home for this story of a particularly British scandal
Do Netflix viewers the world over want to watch a drama featuring the inner workings of Corby Borough Council? The ratings for their new drama Toxic Town will tell. And you can be certain that the BBC will have a wary eye on those viewing figures because the corporation has been justifying its existence of late by saying that it tells the kind of British stories that US streamers wouldn't touch, yet stories don't come much more British than this one. Some years after British Steel closed down its operations in Corby, Northants, in 1979, the council began a regeneration project. But the toxic waste being transported away from the site came off the lorries in clouds of dust, and a burnt orange sludge ran through the streets. Pregnant women exposed to the contaminants gave birth to babies with limb deformities. The case eventually reached court, in a trial which forms the last of these four episodes. You can see the appeal for Netflix execs: it is a real-life David and Goliath tale, and in the scrappy Susan McIntyre, one of the mothers whose child was affected, they have an Erin Brockovich figure. McIntyre is played by Jodie Whittaker, while Aimee Lou Wood and Claudia Jessie are cast as two other young mums, Tracey and Maggie. As the series goes on they team up with a lawyer (Rory Kinnear, reliably good) who is keen to take their case, aided by a young whistleblower (Stephen McMillan). Seasoned writer Jack Thorne knows how to hit the beats with a drama like this. The first episode concentrates on Susan and Tracey, efficiently introducing us to their respective relationships – Tracey's husband is a keeper, Susan's partner is not – and following them from pregnancy test to the shock of learning that their babies have been born 'deformed' (and with more serious health problems, in the case of Tracey's daughter). The personal stuff is more engrossing than the courtroom scenes, which verge on the dull. Brendan Coyle and Robert Carlyle put in fine performances as the council leader and his honourable deputy. Whittaker fizzes, although you may need subtitles to decipher every word of her Scottish accent, and Michael Socha stands out as her good-for-nothing partner. It's very watchable and, in the mould of Mr Bates vs the Post Office, highlights a scandal which failed to imprint itself on the public consciousness. But Netflix does feel like an odd home for this drama. You get the sense that Thorne has kept the plot simple and by-numbers to please the streamer, yet his dialogue is unapologetically homegrown (Americans may find themselves googling terms such as 'bog brush'). Robert Carlyle delivering the line 'You were always a w---er but you never used to be a c---' is surely as British as it gets.
