Irish Skydiving Club CLG and Anor v Irish Aviation Authority DAC

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 723
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2022/844JR]

Between

Irish Skydiving Club CLG & Eoin Nevin

Applicants

and

Irish Aviation Authority DAC

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 723

[Record No. 2022/844JR]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Barr delivered electronically on 19 December 2025 .

Introduction.

1 . The first applicant is a company limited by guarantee. It operates as a club involved in the sport of skydiving and parachuting. The club charters two G8 Airvan planes from a company called Artificial Horizon Limited for use by the club. These planes are registered in the United Kingdom. These are small planes that can hold a pilot and approximately six parachutists. The club operates from an airfield in County Kilkenny, which is owned by a company called Skydive Ireland Limited. The club has been in existence since in or about 2010.

2 . The second applicant is an electrician. He holds a private pilot's licence issued by the respondent. He is a certified parachutist. He is a director of the first applicant. He also holds the position of administrator within the club.

3 . The respondent is a statutory undertaking established pursuant to s. 11 of the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993. Its function is to regulate the aviation industry and aviation operations within the State. The respondent is the competent authority for the purpose of EU regulations.

4 . In these proceedings the applicants seek to impugn the legality of two inspections that were carried out by representatives of the respondent at the airfield on 26 August 2022 and 16 September 2022. The applicants seek orders setting aside the findings and corrective actions imposed by the respondent's representatives in the course of these inspections.

5 . The legality of the inspections has been contested on many grounds. These will be outlined in detail later in the judgment; they include allegations that the inspections were carried out without legal authority; that the inspectors lacked competence to carry out the inspections; that the inspectors acted unlawfully and in breach of fair procedures in the manner in which they carried out the inspections; that the findings made by the inspectors were unlawful and unreasonable in the legal sense; and that the actions taken by the inspectors on foot of their findings were unreasonable and unlawful.

6 . The respondent denies that it lacked jurisdiction to carry out the inspections on the dates in question; it denies that its representatives acted unlawfully or in breach of the rights of the applicants; it denies that the findings made, or the actions taken by its representatives consequent thereon were unlawful, oppressive, or in breach of the rights of the applicants; it denies that the applicants are entitled to any of the reliefs sought against it.

Issues.

7 . These proceedings have generated a considerable volume of paper, running to some sixteen lever arch files. The hearing took five days, with cross examination of the deponents of the main affidavits. There were also extensive legal submissions made orally and in writing.

8 . Having considered all this material, the court is satisfied that the following are the core issues that have to be determined in these proceedings:

• (a) Did the respondent have jurisdiction to carry out the inspections on 26 ^th August 2022 and 16 ^th September 2022?

• (b) If so, did the fact that the respondent had been in discussion with the first applicant concerning its operations manual and other matters in the period July 2021 to May/June 2022, limit or prevent the respondent carrying out the inspections?

• (c) If the respondent was entitled to carry out the inspections in August and September 2022, did its representatives do so in a lawful manner?

• (d) Was there evidence which entitled the respondent's representatives to make the findings that they did in the course of the inspections?

• (e) Did the respondent's representatives act lawfully in grounding the aircraft G-VANC on 16 September 2022?

• (f) Did the respondent act lawfully in suspending the second applicant's pilot's licence on 23 ^rd September 2022?

• (g) Did the respondent act unlawfully in the manner in which it responded to a request for information about the second applicant as put to it by the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK?

Background.

9 . It was accepted by the parties that the operations carried on by the first applicant club, constituted non-commercial operations. This was due to the fact that the people participating in the parachute jumps would become members of the club. While they would pay a subscription for this membership, the funds generated by the company were not distributed outside the company but were used solely to cover administration and other costs and to advance the sport of skydiving and parachuting. It was also accepted that the two aircraft chartered by the first applicant were what is termed “non-complex aircraft”, meaning that they were relatively simple aircraft that did not have complex machinery thereon, such as retracting wheels.

10 . The G8 Airvan planes are quite small. They have a single propeller at the front and a rigid wing running across the top of the cabin. They have one wheel at the front and two wheels at the centre beneath the cabin, all of which are fixed in position. As already noted, the plane can take eight passengers when there are seats. However, for skydiving and parachute operations the passenger seats are removed. Usually the plane would fly with a single pilot and six parachutists. These parachutists may be single parachutists in that they would have a parachute each, or they may be novices who are undertaking a parachute jump with a very experienced parachutist, known as a task specialist. The novice would be attached onto the task specialist by a harness. The task specialist would operate the parachute that would be used by both of them. Where the seats have been removed, the precise number of occupants is determined by the cumulative weight of those travelling in the aeroplane.

11 . The fact that this was a non-commercial operation and that the aircraft was a non-complex aircraft, is relevant from the point of view of the applicable regulations. This will be dealt with in detail later in the judgment.

12 . Upon the final departure of Great Britain from the European Union, as and from 1 ^st January 2021 the respondent became the competent authority in respect of the operations carried on by the first and second applicants, notwithstanding that their aircraft remained registered in the UK. On 27 ^th July 2021, a representative of the respondent, Mr. Robert (otherwise Bob) Linehan contacted the first respondent through the portal on its website. The purpose of his communication was to introduce himself to the first respondent. He indicated that he would like to visit them at Kilkenny aerodrome to view the Irish Skydiving Club operations at first hand. He gave his contact details in that communication.

13 . At 16:22 hours that day, Mr. Linehan received a somewhat frosty response from the second applicant as director of the first applicant. He complained that the club had not had any contact from the respondent in the previous six years. He stated that if Mr. Linehan wished to visit the club's premises, they would require any such request by the respondent to be made formally in writing. In addition, the respondent and Mr. Linehan were asked to confirm the following: the lawful basis and scope of the jurisdiction giving the respondent safety oversight of the club; the reasons why the club had had no contact from the respondent in the previous six years; the reason which prompted the respondent after such period to want to visit the airfield; the nature, purpose and scope of the respondent's intended visit to the airfield; the names of the respondent's representatives who would be visiting the airfield; and whether or not the respondent had received any complaint concerning the club. The email went on to state that as soon as the club was formally furnished with that information, they should be in a position to consider the request made by Mr. Linehan to visit the airfield. The letter concluded by stating that the club had a low level of trust and confidence in the respondent based on its acts and omissions in the past.

14 . Mr. Linehan responded by email at 16:49 hours on 28 ^th July 2021. In that email he gave the link to the relevant EU regulation, being Regulation (EU) 965/2012 (as amended). He went on to give a synopsis of the provisions of Art. 5 thereof. He also referred to the provisions set out in annex VII thereto. He concluded by stating that the scope of the respondent's proposed visit was to establish a relationship with the club and to observe the operations carried on by it. He requested that the second applicant would forward the dates and times when the club would be operational during the period Sunday 1 ^st to Sunday, 8 ^th August 2021 so that they could agree a time and date that would be mutually convenient for a visit.

15 . That email prompted a lengthy response from the second applicant by email dated 5 ^th August 2021. In his email he took issue with the provisions and the regulations that had been referred to by Mr. Linehan. He also set out in greater detail the information or questions that would have to be answered prior to any visit to the premises being permitted. He stated that the applicants required and expected to have all their concerns addressed in a constructive manner prior to any meeting occurring between the respondent and the club. He concluded by repeating that as soon as they were formally furnished with answers to the questions that they had raised, they should be in a position to properly consider the request by the respondent to visit the premises and would endeavour to advise the respondent of their position as soon as practicable.

16 . Mr. Linehan replied by email dated 12 ^th August 2021,...