'Bizarre' incident at Coles leads to a shocking lawsuit
- Replies 26
A Coles supermarket in Perth has found itself at the centre of a peculiar legal battle after a regular customer alleged she was falsely imprisoned not once, but twice, while shopping at the same store.
The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.
The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.
The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.
This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.
After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.
However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.
The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.
She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.
The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.
'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.
The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.
Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.
A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.
'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.
To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'
On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.
The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.
She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.
'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'
She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.
'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'
'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'
'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'
Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.
'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.
'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'
The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.
The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.
What are your thoughts on this case, members? Let us know in the comments below!
The case, which has sparked a flurry of media attention, centred around an incident where the woman claimed she was unjustly detained by Coles staff while purchasing bread and newspaper.
The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, alleged that she was prevented from leaving the Coles supermarket at Wanneroo Shopping Centre in Perth's northern suburbs on two separate occasions.
The reason? She was accused of not paying for a newspaper that she insisted she had purchased at a different store.
A woman alleges that she was 'falsely imprisoned' by Coles staff. Image source: Shutterstock.
This first incident occurred in March 2020 when the woman entered Coles supermarket with a copy of The West Australian newspaper she had bought at a nearby newsagent.
After picking up bread and four slices of polony (known as devon in most states), she proceeded to the express checkout to pay her $2.80 bill.
However, a sales assistant asked her to pay for the newspaper as well, leading to a heated dispute.
The woman alleged that a Coles employee threatened to call the police and that three other staff members blocked her exit from the store.
She further claimed that a security guard pushed a shopping trolley towards her, causing her to lose her footing and become ‘so fearful that she wet herself’.
The security guard, however, testified and gave evidence that it was the woman who had hit him with the trolley.
'I believe she was a little upset, and she tried to ram me with the trolley straight to my belly,' he said.
The staff reportedly told the woman she could leave but she insisted on waiting for the police, who then placed her under arrest when they arrived and let her go without charge.
Despite alleging that she had suffered trauma during the incident, the woman continued to shop at the supermarket, including the day after her one-year ban ended.
A similar incident occurred in May 2021 when the same woman was (again) accused of not paying for a newspaper she had purchased elsewhere.
'I'm informed that you haven't paid for the paper before,' a staff member said.
To which she responded: 'Well, you have been misinformed.'
On both occasions, however, the newsagent confirmed the woman had bought the newspaper from his shop.
The woman, who claims to hold three law degrees and a doctorate, represented herself in the Western Australian District Court. She sued Coles and MCS Security, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
However, Judge Linda Black found the woman's evidence to be dishonest and 'bizarre'.
She noted that the woman's decision to continue shopping at the same Coles supermarket, despite living an hour's drive away and having other supermarket options closer to home, damaged her credibility.
'I find that the plaintiff is not a credible witness,' Judge Black said. 'She is neither honest nor reliable.'
She also claimed that the woman continued to dispute evidence as seen on the body-worn camera footage despite her 'clearly mistaken (or dishonest) recollection'.
'The fact that the plaintiff asserted she suffered significant physical and mental consequences from what happened, according to her, on the first occasion is utterly irreconcilable with her decision to continue to go to the Coles supermarket in question, including during a period she was banned from doing so.'
'Her refusal to acknowledge the availability and feasibility of attending other Coles supermarkets or other supermarkets such as Woolworths, ALDI and IGA damaged her credibility.'
'This is particularly so in circumstances where she lived a very long way from the Coles supermarket in question.'
Judge Black also dismissed the woman's claim of wetting herself, stating that the woman appeared confident and robust in the body-worn camera footage.
'She does not appear injured nor distressed in any way, and she does not suggest she has wet herself,' the judge found.
'By contrast, she appears confident, robust, keen to lecture others on the law and deriving pleasure from the circumstances in which she had an opportunity to assert her rights.'
The judge concluded that the woman was not prevented from leaving the supermarket and dismissed her claim in its entirety.
The woman was ordered to pay Coles' and the security company's costs.
.png){kind=icon}
