Henderson v Dublin Airport Authority T/A DAA Plc and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms Justice Bolger
• Judgment Date: 22 January 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] IEHC 29
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2021/3275P]

Between

Amanda Henderson

Plaintiff

and

Dublin Airport Authority T/A DAA Public Limited Company and Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Defendants

[2024] IEHC 29

[Record No. 2021/3275P]

THE HIGH COURT

Security for costs – Personal injuries – Negligence – First defendant seeking security for costs – Whether the first defendant had a bona fide defence

Facts: The first defendant, Dublin Airport Authority, applied to the High Court for security for costs pursuant to O. 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The plaintiff, Ms Henderson, pleaded in her Personal Injury Summons that she sustained injuries while descending an escalator in the public area of the first defendant’s premises at Dublin Airport while waiting for her flight with the second defendant, Ryanair DAC, as a result of the negligence, nuisance and breach of duty of both defendants. She went on to plead at para. 7: “Further and/or in the alternative, the plaintiff’s injuries were sustained in an accident which occurred during the course of embarkation the second-named defendant’s aircraft, on which she was scheduled to fly, with the result that it is strictly liable for same under the [Air Navigation and Transport (International Conventions) Act 2004] and the [Montreal Convention 1929].” The first defendant’s grounding affidavit exhibited a draft defence which pleaded at para. 1: “Without prejudice to the matters pleaded below, the First named Defendant expressly pleads that as the Plaintiff has pleaded that she was in the course of embarkation at the time of her accident and in circumstances where the Plaintiff has named the Second named Defendant as the airline carrier with which the Plaintiff was flying, the Plaintiff is confined to pursuing her claim against the Second named Defendant pursuant to the provisions of the Montreal Convention 1929 as transposed into Irish Law by the Air Navigation and Transport (International Conventions) Act 2004 and is precluded from pursuing the alleged or any cause of action against the First named Defendant.” The first defendant asserted that it had a bona fide defence to the plaintiff’s claim. In her replying affidavit the plaintiff set out her income, savings and equity in her family home. She said she took three weeks sick leave as a result of the accident and that she lost out on a bonus of approximately STG£12,000 for having taken too much sick leave in the year of her accident. In relation to her plea at para. 7 of her personal injury summons she said that the accident occurred during embarkation “with the result that [the first defendant] is strictly liable for same under the said 2004 Act and the Montreal Convention.” She averred that she was in a position to pay any costs order should such an order be made against her and that it would be “possible and straightforward” for the first defendant to engage in the UK courts system to recover any such costs.

Held by Bolger J that the first defendant was, in principle, entitled to an order for security for its costs against the plaintiff pursuant to O. 29 as it had established that the plaintiff resided outside the jurisdiction and that it had a bona fide defence. Bolger J held that the plaintiff had confirmed her ability to pay any costs order that may be made against her but the enforcement of any such order would be more difficult and expensive for the first defendant as it would have to be made in the UK, a non-EU jurisdiction.

Bolger J held that the first defendant was entitled to an order for security for a proportion of their costs. As the first defendant has succeeded in the motion and in accordance with the provisions of s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, Bolger J’s indicative view on costs was that the first defendant was entitled to the costs of the motion.

Application granted.

Counsel for the plaintiff: Darach MacNamara BL.

Counsel for the defendant: Eamon Marray BL.

JUDGMENT ofMs Justice Bolgerdelivered on the 22 ^nd day of January 2024

1 . This is the first defendant's application for security for costs pursuant to O. 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, Rule 3 of which provides:

“No defendant shall be entitled to an order for security for costs by reason of any plaintiff being resident out of the jurisdiction of the Court, unless upon a satisfactory affidavit that such defendant has a defence upon the merits.”

2 . The court has an additional discretion to refuse security for costs in...