Higgins v The Irish Aviation Authority

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,McKechnie J.,Dunne J.
• Judgment Date: 13 February 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 17
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 13 February 2017

[2017] IESCDET 17

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

Dunne J.

BETWEEN

PADRAIG HIGGINS

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY

DEFENDANT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES.

RESULT: The Court does grant leave to the applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.

REASONS GIVEN:

1 1. Jurisdiction

2 This determination concerns an appeal brought by the defendant/applicant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) from the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Hogan J., Peart J., and Hedigan J.) delivered on the 4th November, 2016 ( [2016] I.E.C.A. 322) and the order made on that date and perfected on the 8th December, 2016. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty Third Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise in the interests of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.

3 The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issues upon which leave has been granted to appeal to this Court will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

2. The proceedings

4 In these proceedings the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as Mr. Higgins) sought damages for defamation arising out of three e-mails sent by a then employee of the Applicant to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the United Kingdom and other employees of the Applicant. The e-mails were sent following communications from the CAA regarding an incident Mr. Higgins was involved in while flying a microlight aircraft in the United Kingdom.

5 Mr. Higgins claims that the e-mails were defamatory of him. By letter dated the 25th May, 2015, the Applicant made an offer to make amends pursuant to s. 22 of the Defamation Act 2009 (“the Act of 2009') offering to publish a correction and apology and further offering to pay such sum of compensation or damages and such costs as may be agreed or determined.

6 The offer to make amends was accepted by Mr. Higgins. The parties have not been able to agree terms of the offer of amends. An application for directions for the conduct of an application for a determination under paragraph (c) of s. 23(1) of the Act of 2009 was listed before the High Court. Mr. Higgins was seeking a direction that the quantum of damages was to be assessed by a jury. Following the hearing of the motion for directions a written decision was delivered on the 10th...