Aer Rianta c.p.t. v Ryanair Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 April 2004
• Date: 02 April 2004
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 352 of 2003]
• Court: Supreme Court

Aer Rianta c.p.t. v. Ryanair Ltd.

Aer Rianta c.p.t.

Plaintiff

and

Ryanair Limited

Defendant

[2004] IESC 23

[S.C. No. 352 of 2003]

Supreme Court

Practice and procedure - Pleading - Strike out - No cause of action - Part of pleading - Whether Court's jurisdiction to strike out any pleading refers to part thereof - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (S.I. No. 15), O. 19, rr. 28 and 27 and O. 125, r. 1.

The plaintiff instituted proceedings claiming, inter alia,that the defendant had damaged its reputation and business as a result of statements allegedly published on the defendant's website and contained in a press release concerning the level of airport charges levied by the plaintiff. The defendant by notice of motion applied to the High Court seeking an order pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 striking out paras. 15, 16 and 17 of the plaintiff's statement of claim on the basis that "the said pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action". The plaintiff submitted that O. 19, r. 28 applied to a pleading in its entirety and not to only part of a pleading.

The High Court (Lavan J.) refused the defendant's application holding that O. 19, r. 28 applied to an entire pleading and not to a part of a pleading. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held by the Supreme Court (Denham, Hardiman and McCracken JJ.), in dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of the High Court, that on the plain meaning of the words of O. 19, r. 28 the rule applied to a pleading in its entirety. Therefore, a court had jurisdiction to strike out an entire pleading but not a portion thereof. This interpretation, based on a construction of the plain meaning of the words of r. 28, was both internally consistent and also externally consistent with O. 19, r. 27 dealing with "any matter in any indorsement or pleading", the definition of a "pleading" in O. 125, r. 1 and with a policy of cost effective litigation avoiding costly lengthy litigation involving multiple interlocutory motions.

There are no cases mentioned in this report.

Appeal from the High Court

The facts are summarised in the headnote and are more fully set out in the judgment of Denham J., infra.

By notice of appeal filed on the 2nd October, 2003, the defendant appealed the judgment and order of the High Court (Lavan J.) given on the 29th July, 2004, in which the defendant's application to strike out paras. 15, 16 and 17 of the plaintiff's statement of claim, on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was refused.

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (Denham, Hardiman and McCracken JJ.) on the 22nd March, 2004.

Cur. adv. vult.

Denham J. 2nd April, 2004

1 This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment and order of the High Court (Lavan J.) given on the 29th July, 2003, refusing the application of the defendant under O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 to strike out paras. numbered 15, 16 and 17 of the statement of claim of the plaintiff in the main proceedings on the basis that "the...