Ryanair v Quigley

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Binchy
• Judgment Date: 09 December 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 776
• Docket Number: [2013/5867P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 09 December 2015

[2015] IEHC 776

THE HIGH COURT

Binchy J.

[2013/5867P]

BETWEEN

RYANAIR LTD

PLAINTIFF

AND

RAY QUIGLEY

DEFENDANTS

Tort – Defamation – The Defamation Act 2009 – Practice & Procedures – Order for discovery – Fair and reasonable publication – Honest opinion – Relevant documents

Facts: Following the institution of the defamation proceedings by the plaintiff against the defendant for publishing that the plaintiff flies to the regional airports with fewer infrastructures compromising the safety of the passengers, the defendant now sought an order for discovery of certain categories of documents. The defendant pleaded that the publication of the alleged text was an honest opinion protected under s. 20 of the Defamation Act 2009 or fair and reasonable publication under s. 26 of the said Act of 2009.

Mr. Justice Binchy granted an order for the discovery of certain categories of documents which were relevant and material for deciding the issues subject to obtaining discovery of those documents for a period of three years prior to the date of publication of the alleged defamatory text. The Court, however, refused to grant an order for discovery of the documents which were without any factual basis. The Court held that the defendant who wished to raise a plea of honest opinion under s. 20 of the said Act of 2009 must prove that the alleged defamatory words were opinion with some factual basis and published in public interest. The Court observed that the honest opinion as alleged by the defendant must be based upon some facts. The Court found that in the present case, the allegations raised by the defendant in relation to the regional airports were based on factual facts showing certain administrative and functional inadequacies and hence, the discovery of the concerned documents became essential for further clarification and resolution of the issue between the parties.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Binchy delivered on the 9th day of December, 2015.

1 This is an application for discovery brought by the defendant in proceedings issued by the plaintiff against the defendant whereby the plaintiff claims, inter alia, damages from the defendant for defamation. The proceedings arise out of the publication of a statement on a website known as ‘The Professional Pilots Rumour Network.’ The plaintiff claims that the statement was published by the defendant, the text of which is as follows:

‘FFS…….IAA wake up! Do we need to have an actual crash before you react? Lives will be lost here. Just to be sure you realise what's going on here, all the worlds' press monitors this site and your complicity in Ryanairs' inadequacies.

And why do RYR go to these back of beyond places with limited infrastructure? Because they are cheap to go to. Does the lack of facilities increase or decrease the safety? You know the answer already. Do the travelling public have the slightest inkling that their safety is compromised by the cheap airfares? Of course not. Now some RYR hero will try to defend the fact that levels of protection are not compromised. Safety costs money and that money comes from paying an appropriate price for the flight. Fairly simple. As in everything else, you get what you pay for.

Tomkins, you'll have to quantify ‘safely’. As I said substandard infrastructure at an airfield affects the safety levels. So to answer your question, I would guess in the last ten years, many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. No deaths so far, but very many close calls.

Airfrance have the same standard of pilot as Ryanair or any other JAR operator, we are all checked to the same stringent levels. What I am saying is, it is the cheap, underequipped (compared to other) airfields that RYR operate to that (sic) reduce the safety in RYR's operation’.

2 In his defence, the defendant has denied publication to any person other than the plaintiff. The defendant has not pleaded the defence of truth in respect of the contents of the publication, but he has pleaded, at paras. 10 and 11 of his defence as follows:

‘10. If the said words were published by the defendant to any person other than the plaintiff within the State same were comment and opinion, protected by s. 20 of the Defamation Act, 2009, on matters of public interest, and hence not defamatory of the plaintiff, nor actionable nearly upon its say so, viz that the well known and established pursuit by Ryanair of remoter airports, away from larger cities and more established larger airports, and where the management or operation of those remoter airports, commonly with smaller or less or more limited infrastructure, could have an impact on consequential ground control and general airport backup risk management and takeoff and landing supports, and the defendant adopts the further particulars set out in para. 14 below.

11. If the said words were published by the defendant to any person other than the plaintiff within the State then same constituted fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest protected by s. 26 of the Defamation Act, 2009, and hence not defamatory of the plaintiff, nor actionable merely upon its say so, viz that the well known and established pursuit by Ryanair of remoter airports, away from larger cities and more established larger airports, and where the management or operation of those remoter airports, commonly with smaller or less or more limited infrastructure, could have an impact on consequential ground control and general airport backup risk management and takeoff and landing supports, and the defendant adopts the further particulars set out in para. 14 below.’

3 Paragraph 14 of the defence of the defendant states:

‘Paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim is denied; if the defendant published any such words in the State to any person other than the plaintiff, same was comment or opinion protected by s. 20 or fair and reasonable publication protected by s. 26 of the Defamation Act, 2009 and hence not defamatory of the plaintiff, nor actionable merely upon its say so, and the defendant declined to furnish the undertaking so sought because he was exercising protected rights, and not otherwise.’

4 On 1st April, 2014, the solicitors for the defendant sent to the solicitors for the plaintiff a letter requesting the plaintiff to make voluntary discovery of documentation. This letter sets forth all of the categories of documentation discovery of which is sought pursuant to the notice of motion herein and sets out the reasons in support of each category as follows:-

‘1. The corporate policy of the plaintiff, referred to para. 14 of the Reply, in not operating category C airports (or in Ryanair terminology while it designates that some airfields as ‘Captain Only’).

Reason A: paragraph 14 of the Reply asserts ‘… the plaintiff has a corporate policy of not operating to category C airports’ which addresses the plea and particulars in para. 9 of the defence inter alia pursuant to s. 26 (fair and reasonable publication). The second statement which the plaintiff asserts is defamatory starts by stating ‘and why do RYR go to these back of beyond places with a limited infrastructure. Because they are cheap to go to. Does this lack of facilities increase or decrease the safety? You know the answer already ….’ Paragraph 14 of the Reply denies that the plaintiff operates to category C airports at all but asserts that the ‘… categorisation is determined by each individual operator on assessment of operational considerations at the individual airport and the limitations of the aircraft type …’ [operator in this sense refers to airline operator including the plaintiff]. Regardless of the terminology used, the documents are directly material to the respective cases put forward by the plaintiff and the defendant. See also the reasons cited below as been general to all categories.

2. The airfield specific briefings to pilots of all category B and category C airfields (or Captain Only) used by the plaintiff between the 1st January, 2007 to 1st January, 2012.

Reason A above is repeated.

Reason B: these briefings are relevant and necessary for the purpose, inter alia, of establishing the varying challenges in respect of each airfield to which the plaintiff operates. The plaintiff asserts in para. 14 of the Reply that ‘there is no reduction in safety levels and statistically no more risk of a serious incident or accident when operating two category C airports’. It is pleaded, inter alia, in paras. 10 and 14 of the Defence that ‘the well known and established pursuit by Ryanair of remote airports, away from larger cities and more established larger airports, and where the management or operation of those remote airports, commonly with a smaller or less or more limited infrastructure, could have an impact on consequential ground to control and general airport backup risk management and takeoff and landing supports’ and the particulars under para. 14 of the Defence elaborate on the infrastructural deficits.

3. Reports, communications, advice or warnings from Aviation Authorities, governments or European Union bodies or other relevant international bodies related to air-safety in respect of category B and C (or Captain Only) airfields used by the plaintiff between the 1st January, 2007 to 1st January, 2012.

Reasons A and B are repeated.

Reasons C: the fact that the plaintiff operates to remote airfields has been put in issue in these proceedings and the effect same has on safety is addressed in the pleadings. These documents will address this material issue.

4. Reports, either internal (including but not limited to mandatory occurrence reports from pilots) or external, detailing ‘near-misses’ attributed in whole or in part to infrastructural deficits or airfields operated by the plaintiff between the 1st January, 2007 to 1st January, 2012.

Reasons A, B and C are repeated.

5. All documents,...