‘Lady in red’ wore dress to TY ball
Stock image of red dress
A MOTHER who told a court she felt “trapped” with a faulty transition year ball dress has lost her bid for a €350 refund after a judge heard her daughter wore the gown to the event.
The woman brought a civil claim against Obsession Bridal & Evening Wear Limited, trading as Obsession Showroom, Graiguecullen at Carlow District Court before Judge Geraldine Carthy.
She told the court that she ordered a red dress for her daughter in September 2025, paying a deposit of €175. The dress was due to arrive within six weeks.
“Six weeks passed and nothing happened. From November, I was asking if there was any sign of this dress. I was calling every couple of weeks and was told not to worry, it would be on time,” she said.
She said she was told on 20 February that the dress was in stock and she collected it on 28 February. When her daughter tried it on, they noticed some of the lining was “turned outwards.” The woman showed photographs of the dress to the judge.
“It looks like the underside is exposed, it’s a lighter red,” she explained. “We contacted them and they said to come back in and they would have a look at the dress. They acknowledged it straight away and said ‘we’ll fix that’. They said it would take a week and offered a repair or refund, but my daughter loved the dress, so we chose repair. It was to take one week. I was still ringing in late March,” she said.
The dress arrived at her home by post on 1 April. “It was just as bad. I don’t even know if anything was done with it,” she claimed.
She said she could not take time off work to travel back to the shop. “I said ‘I feel like you trapped us now with a faulty dress’,” she told the court.
She claimed the shop “offered alternatives which we couldn’t avail of” as the premises was closed on 14 April, her daughter had school on 15 April and the ball was the following day.
“We didn’t have anything else, so she wore the dress. I got it freshly cleaned and sent it back and told them she wore the dress.” The owner of the dress shop told the court that she had offered “a free alteration and a full refund on two occasions.” Holding up a document, she said it was “email evidence showing we offered a full refund on 1 April,” in addition to an offer of an exchange or fitting on 7 April.
“On 22 April, a dress showed up with signs of wear and damage. When I provided evidence of this, only then did she admit to it having been worn,” she said.
The shop owner said a full refund would have constituted “100% financial loss” for the business.
She also told the court that “the lining visibility is an inherent characteristic of this dress, not a manufacturing fault,” adding that she had a message from the manufacturer confirming that the individual dress had passed a quality check.
“We offered every remedy available, but the claimant chose to wear it,” she said.
Judge Carthy said: “I have to apply the law,” adding that because the dress had been worn, she would dismiss the case.
***Funded by Court Reporting Scheme ***
