Ryanair Ltd v Ian Somner
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Michael Peart |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IEHC 634 |
| Docket Number | Record Number:No.4461P/2013 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 12 December 2014 |
[2014] IEHC 634
THE HIGH COURT
Between:
And
DEFAMATION ACT 2009 S18
REYNOLDS v TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD 2001 2 AC 127 1999 3 WLR 1010 1999 4 AER 609 2000 EMLR 1 2000 HRLR 134 7 BHRC 289 1999 96 45 LSG 34 1999 149 NLJ 1697
QUINN INSURANCE LTD & ORS v TRIBUNE NEWSPAPERS PLC & ORS UNREP 13.5.2009 2009/47/11785 2009 IEHC 229
RSC O.19 r7
RSC O.19 r3
Practice & procedure – Claim –Pleadings –Application for further and better particulars– Defendant applying also for discovery order
Facts: The plaintiff airline contended the defendant had defamed it. The defendant, inter alia, had pleaded a defence of honest opinion, and the plaintiff sought further and better particulars in respect of this claim and others. The defendant also applied for discovery against the plaintiff.
Mr Justice Peart stated that the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to comply with his obligations in respect of a full set of particulars. Having considered submissions, the Court was satisfied the plaintiff knew in detail the issues raised by the defendant, and the plaintiff”s application was refused. The defendant”s application for discovery was not a fishing exercise, and the Court was content to grant an order for discovery for a number of documents as they were relevant to the determination of the claim.
There are two motions before the Court for decision. I will deal firstly with the plaintiff's motion for further and better for particulars, and then deal with the defendant's motion for discovery against the plaintiff.
In these proceedings the plaintiff, Ryanair, sues the defendant for, inter alia, damages for defamation.
The defendant was a pilot working for Ryanair from October 2004 until his resignation on medical grounds on the 16th September 2011.
In late December 2012 the defendant took part in a two-part television programme entitled 'Mayday Mayday', which was broadcast also on the internet, and it is alleged by the plaintiff that during the course of his contributions to that programme he stated particular words as set forth in the Statement of Claim which are defamatory of the plaintiff company. It is not necessary to set out all the allegedly defamatory words referred to in the Statement of Claim, but the plaintiff pleads that the words in question meant and were understood to mean, both in their natural and ordinary meaning and/or by way of innuendo, that:
(i) the corporate culture, management structure and the way Ryanair deals with its staff jeopardises the safety of passengers by placing pilots under abnormal stress and pressure.
(ii) the chances of being involved in a serious incident or accident on Ryanair are greater than on other airlines.
(iii) a serious incident or accident on Ryanair is inevitable.
(iv) Ryanair compromises the safety and lives of its passengers and is an airline that should be avoided.
5. In his Defence delivered on 23rd December 2013, he admits that he published the words complained of during the programme and on the website, and also, inter alia, pleads that the natural and ordinary interpretation or meaning of the words complained of is as the plaintiffs have pleaded in their Statement of Claim, except that it is not accepted that the words complained of meant that "a serious incident or accident on Ryanair is inevitable".
6. As part of his Defence, the Defendant pleads honest opinion, truth, fair and honest publication on a matter of public interest, and qualified privilege.
7. In relation to honest opinion, it is pleaded (a) that the words complained of constituted the opinion of the defendant; (b) the opinion pertained to a matter of public interest, namely the adverse effect of the plaintiff's corporate culture on passenger safety; (c) at the time of publication, the defendant believed in the truth of the said opinion, and continues to do so; (d) the said opinion was based on allegations and facts specified in the publication, and further/in the alternative, in the context of a broadcast concerning "the incident of 26th of July 2012" the audience knew or might reasonably be expected to have known what allegations of fact were being referred to, and further/in the alternative, the said opinion was based on allegations of fact to which privilege attaches.
8. The plaintiff raised particulars in relation to honest opinion and asked for full and detailed particulars of the allegations of fact specified in the publication upon which the defendant relies in support of the defence of honest opinion. Particulars were also sought in respect of any facts not specified in the publication but which it is alleged the audience knew or might reasonably be expected to have known, and also in relation to any allegations of fact to which the defendant asserts that privilege attaches, and also asked the defendant to identify the nature of the privilege which they alleged existed.
9. In its reply to this request for particulars, the defendant stated that the allegations of fact relied upon in support of the defence of honest opinion are that (i) pilots in Ryanair who raise serious concerns are quickly punished or disciplined; (ii) pilots in Ryanair are not valued or respected; (iii) that Ryanair engages in bullying, intimidation, threats and harassment; (iv) that there exists a layer of pilot fear and stress within Ryanair that does not exist within other airlines. (v) that the plaintiff's corporate culture and management structure and the way that the plaintiff deals with its staff adds an extra layer of fear and stress; (vi) the fact that certain of the plaintiff's pilots are being paid only when they fly; (vii) the fact that certain of the plaintiff's pilots are based in foreign countries and are stressed because they are based in locations other than those where they want to be.
10. In answer to the request for particulars as to what the audience knew or might reasonably be expected to have known, the defendant stated that it was the plaintiff's belligerent corporate culture and aggressive manner in which had dealt with both passengers and staff.
11. In answer to the request for full and detailed particulars of the allegations of fact to which the defendant asserts that privilege attaches, the defendant replied that the defendant's stated opinions were based on the facts set out in replies 1 and 2 to which I have already referred, and went on to state that those facts were stated by the defendant on an occasion of qualified privilege which arises pursuant to common law, and pursuant to Section 18 of the Defamation Act, 2009.
12. In answer to the other requests for particulars set out above, the defendant stated that the nature of the privilege alleged is qualified privilege, and that this is privilege which arises from a line of authority commencing withReynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127, and arising from Section 18 of the Defamation Act, 2009.
13. In relation to the defence pleaded that the publication constituted a fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest, the plaintiff sought particulars of the facts which it is alleged that the defendant's publication was based upon (and which it is alleged the defendant knew or believed to be true) and also full and detailed particulars of all attempts made by the defendant to contact the plaintiff to obtain and publish a response from the plaintiff in advance of the publication, and also in relation to all attempts made and the means used by the defendant to verify the assertions and allegations concerning the plaintiff in advance of the publication.
14. In response to these requests, the defendant stated that the facts upon which the defendant's statements were based, and which he as a former pilot of the plaintiff knew or believed to be true, are those facts set out in replies 1 and 2 in the replies to notice for particulars already been set out above. In relation to the other matters sought under this heading, the defendant stated that his statements were based on facts which he, a former pilot of the plaintiff, knew or believed to be true. He went on to state that the broadcaster of the programme on which the defendant's remarks were published contacted the plaintiff in advance of the broadcasts in order to obtain and publish a response from the plaintiff, which response was both obtained and published during the course of the broadcasts. He went on to say that it was not necessary for the defendant to separately verify the assertions and allegations being made by him since they were based upon facts which he, as a former pilot of the plaintiff, knew or believed to be true.
15. Finally, the request for particulars sought further particulars of the basis upon which it was alleged that the defendant was entitled to rely upon the defence of privilege at common law, and the material facts upon which the defendant intends to rely in support of his defence of privilege at common law. To this, the defendant replied that this was a matter of law, but referred to the earlier reply which stated that the nature of the privilege was qualified privilege arising from the line of authority commencing with Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited.
16. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the replies which had been delivered on 4th March 2014 and served a Notice for Further and Better Particulars on 23rd April 2014. The plaintiff asked firstly whether it is claimed by the defendant that he raised concerns (regarding safety or otherwise) and was punished or disciplined by the plaintiff, and if so to provide full and detailed particulars of the material facts upon which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryanair v Quigley
...the purpose of disposing of the action.’ 14 The defendant relies on the decision of Peart J. in the case of Ryanair Ltd. v. Ian Somner [2014] IEHC 634 in which Peart J. granted discovery of certain categories of documentation to the same plaintiff in proceedings of a similar nature. However......