Ryanair Ltd v Goss

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan
• Judgment Date: 15 November 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IECA 328
• Date: 15 November 2016
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Neutral Citation Number: [2016] IECA 328 Record No. 2016 38

[2016] IECA 328

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Peart J.

Peart J.

Hogan J.

Hedigan J.

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] IECA 328

Record No. 2016 38

BETWEEN/

RYANAIR LIMITED

APPELLANT

- AND -

JOHN GOSS

RESPONDENT

Defamation – Particulars – Case to be met – Appellant seeking an order compelling a response to its notice for further and better particulars – Whether appellant already knew in general terms the case it might meet at trial

Facts: The respondent, Mr Goss, was a pilot formerly employed by the appellant, Ryanair Ltd. He was, however, dismissed on the 14th August 2013, two days after the broadcast of a British television programme on Channel 4 entitled “Dispatches: Secrets from the Cockpit” in which it claimed that Ryanair had compromised passenger safety in a number of respects. Mr Goss was interviewed by the Channel 4 team and excerpts from that interview were broadcast in the Dispatches programme. Ryanair commenced defamation proceedings on 22nd August 2013. Ryanair delivered a statement of claim on 6th September 2013 and Mr Goss filed a defence and counterclaim on 16th December 2013. A detailed notice for particulars was served by Ryanair on 28th March 2014 and the respondent replied with an equally detailed response on 2nd May 2014. A notice for further and better particulars was served on 24th November 2014 and the respondent replied on 15th October 2014. The appellant was dissatisfied with this response to its requests for particulars and it issued a motion on 19th January 2015 seeking an order compelling a response to its notice for further and better particulars. At the hearing in the High Court before O’Connor J the outstanding issues were, at his suggestion, reduced to two specific requests for further and better particulars. The first disputed particular sought details of alleged aggressive management behaviour. The second disputed particular sought details of other complaints made by Ryanair pilots who had reported issues to the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) and had received no substantive responses. In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 20th October 2015 O’Connor J dismissed the application on the basis that the appellant had sufficient knowledge from the pleadings and the particulars of the case it might meet at trial ([2015] IEHC 874). Ryanair appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision. Counsel for Mr Goss clarified that all the instances of alleged aggressive management behaviour upon which the respondent relied were contained in the reports made by him to the IAA. Ryanair was already supplied with copies of this material. In those circumstances and in the light of this clarification, Hogan J accepted that the claim had been adequately particularised. Hogan J held that it was, accordingly, unnecessary to consider that issue further.

Held by Hogan J that Ryanair knew in broad terms the case it had to meet, namely, that some of its pilots filed confidential reports with the IAA complaining about safety to which the Authority gave no substantive response. Hogan J held that while the distinction articulated by Henchy J in Cooney v Browne [1984] IR 185 between being entitled to know the range of evidence on the one hand as distinct from any particular item of evidence on the other is sometimes a subtle one, he nonetheless thought that the allegation regarding the other pilots filing confidential reports fell into the former rather than the latter category; Ryanair knew the range of evidence, but not the details of any particular item of evidence, such as the date of a particular complaint or the identity the pilot or pilots in question. Hogan J noted that the authorities were clear that Ryanair was not entitled to the latter information by way of particulars. Hogan J held that while further details and particulars in respect of these complaints would probably assist Ryanair in its conduct of the litigation, he was not persuaded that it does not already know in general terms the case it might meet at the trial.

Hogan J held that he would affirm the decision of the High Court to refuse to make an order directing the respondent to answer the disputed two particulars. He would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan delivered on the 15th day of November 2016

1 In August 2013 the British television channel, Channel 4, broadcast a programme entitled ‘Dispatches: Secrets from the Cockpit’ in which it claimed that the well-known Irish airline (and plaintiff in these proceedings), Ryanair, had compromised passenger safety in a number of respects. It would appear that this particular broadcast has given rise to a good deal of litigation. The present appeal is, indeed, now the third appeal within the last fifteen months or so in which this Court has had occasion to consider questions arising from this particular programme.

2 The defendant was a pilot formerly employed by Ryanair. He was, however, dismissed on the 14th August 2013, two days after the broadcast of the programme. Mr. Goss was interviewed by the Channel 4 team and excerpts from that interview were broadcast in the Dispatches programme. Ryanair commenced these defamation proceedings on 22nd August 2013.

3 Ryanair delivered a statement of claim on 6th September 2013 and Mr. Goss filed a defence and counterclaim on 16th December 2013. A defence to counterclaim is still awaited. A detailed notice for particulars was served by Ryanair on 28th March 2014 and the defendant replied with an equally detailed response on 2nd May 2014. A notice for further and better particulars was served on 24th November 2014 and the defendant replied on 15th October 2014.

4 The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this response to its requests for particulars and it issued a motion on 19th January 2015 seeking an order compelling a response to its notice for further and better particulars. At the hearing in the High Court before O'Connor J. the outstanding issues were, at his suggestion, reduced to two specific requests for further and better particulars, the details of which I will shortly set out. In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 20th October 2015 O'Connor J. dismissed the application on the basis that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge from the pleadings and the particulars of the case it might meet at trial: see Ryanair Ltd. v. Goss [2015] IEHC 874. Ryanair has appealed against that decision to this Court.

5 It is, however, necessary to explain in summary the background to the pleadings before examining the disputed particulars. The general thrust of the Dispatches programme was that Ryanair had potentially compromised passenger safety by reason of its fuel conservation policies, the suggestion being that Ryanair pilots were discouraged from carrying excess fuel capacity in order to save costs. The defendant was interviewed for the programme and in the course of the broadcast he alleged that most of the Ryanair pilots had little confidence in aviation safety agencies and that two thirds of them did not feel comfortable ‘raising safety related issues to Ryanair's own internal systems’. The defendant further alleged that a number of Ryanair pilots had made complaints to the Irish Aviation Authority (‘IAA’) on a confidential basis, but that he was not aware of any pilot who had received a satisfactory response to such a complaint.

6 In its statement of claim Ryanair gave particulars of the alleged defamatory comments, including a claim that the programme had stated or implied that the IAA ‘is turning a blind eye to safety issues in Ryanair’ and that safety issues at Ryanair ‘are being ignored and overlooked by aviation authorities.’ So far as these...