Ryanair Ltd v Goss
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Tony O'Connor |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 874 |
| Docket Number | [2013/9011 P] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 20 October 2016 |
[2015] IEHC 874
THE HIGH COURT
O'Connor Tony J.
[2013/9011 P]
Practice & Procedures – Reply to notice of particulars – O. 19(7) of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Revised requests – Necessary particulars – Reply and defence to counterclaim – Evidence to be adduced – Extension of time
Facts: The plaintiff in the present application, by way of notice of motion, sought an order compelling the defendant to reply to the Notice for Particulars. The plaintiff, at the hearing of the motion, sought for two revised requests regarding the evidence to be adduced. The plaintiff alleged that better particulars were necessary for fair disposal of its case at trial. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff had misused the process of law under o. 19(7) of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Mr. Justice Tony O'Connor refused to grant the plaintiff the wide order originally sought in the notice of motion. The Court extended the time for the delivery of a reply and defence to the counter claim. The Court held that seeking for adequate replies was inappropriate when eventually the plaintiff had sought replies to only two revised requests. The Court found that the plaintiff already had necessary particulars to deliver its reply and defence to the counter claim. The Court found that the defendant had sufficient particulars of the alleged mismanagement and the trial Court could deal with any application, which might be considered necessary to confine the evidence to be adduced.
This is an application by way of Notice of Motion issued on 19th December 2014, which concluded last Friday evening. Rather than delay the parties, the Court agreed to deliver itsex tempore judgment today (Tuesday, 20th October, 2015) to facilitate everyone.
The Notice of Motion sought an order compelling replies to a Notice for Particulars dated 24th July, 2014 without referring to O. 19(7) of the Rules of the Superior Courts (‘RSC’) in the said request or in the Notice of Motion. The affidavit of the Legal and Regulatory Affairs Adviser of the plaintiff, Ms. Moynihan, grounded the Notice of Motion and averred that the defendant had failed to reply to queries raised while expressing a belief that replies to request two, five, seven, ten, twelve and thirteen were wholly inadequate. Ms. Moynihan expressed her belief that it is essential that the defendant provide proper replies. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Hogan, correctly relied upon and referred to O. 19(7) of the RSC for this application.
The pleadings reveal that these are defamation proceedings arising from comments made by the defendant pilot concerning confidence in the aviation authorities during a T.V. broadcast on 12th August 2013. The plaintiff airline has alleged that the wording of the comments meant or were understood to meaninter alia, that the plaintiff airline was not a safe airline. The plaintiff also alleged malice on the part of the defendant.
The Defence delivered on 16th December 2013, denied that the relevant excerpts from the T.V. broadcast were defamatory or that the five specified meanings were the alleged natural or ordinary meaning of the words used by the defendant. The defendant pleaded that two of the alleged meanings:-
(i) The Irish Aviation Authority was turning a blind eye to safety issues in Ryanair and;
(ii) Safety issues in Ryanair were being overlooked by aviation authorities;
were true, while giving particulars of material facts and reserving the right to adduce further particulars if necessary. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Defence pleaded that the defendant's statement in relation to fuel league tables and safety reporting requirements were true and gave particulars of the meaning.
Without prejudice to the denial of the three meanings alleged by the plaintiff airline, the Defence at para. 12, pleaded that those meanings were honest opinions. The defendant then set out the particulars of honest opinion together with the particulars of material facts for these opinions.
Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Whelan, submitted outline written submissions and made concise oral submissions last Friday to the effect, that the plaintiff's way of using O.19(7) of the RSC and more particularly, the issue of this motion is a clear misuse of O.19(7) of the RSC. It was suggested that it was oppressive and an abuse of process.
Counsel for the plaintiff focused on the necessity and desirability of the defendant to furnish outstanding issues of alleged fact which would assist the plaintiff airline to deal with all facts which may be alleged at trial.
It cannot be said in this application that the issue of this motion is an abuse of process. The Court, nevertheless, shares the view already...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryanair Ltd v Goss
...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 man......