The High Court has ruled that Dublin Airport Authority is entitled in principle to security for a proportion of its costs in a personal injury case brought by Amanda Henderson. The court left the proportion to be determined after hearing counsel and listed the matter for final orders on 6 February 2024.
Ms Henderson’s summons alleges that she was injured while descending an escalator in a public area of Dublin Airport. She pleaded that the accident was caused by negligence, nuisance or breach of duty by the Authority and Ryanair. In the alternative, she pleaded that the accident occurred during embarkation onto a Ryanair aircraft and that the airline was strictly liable under the Air Navigation and Transport (International Conventions) Act 2004 and the Montreal Convention.
The Authority applied for security for costs under Order 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Its draft defence argued that if the accident occurred during embarkation, the Montreal Convention confined Ms Henderson’s claim to Ryanair and barred a claim against the Authority. The Authority said it had a bona fide defence.
Justice Bolger said the alternative pleading did not make that defence less bona fide. Whether a claim could proceed against the Authority would be for the trial judge, depending in part on evidence about where the accident occurred and the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bell v DAA. The judgment did not decide the underlying injury claim or determine where the accident happened.
The court found that the Authority had established the Order 29 requirements: Ms Henderson lived outside Ireland and the Authority had a bona fide defence. It also considered whether special circumstances justified refusing security. Ms Henderson said she could pay any costs order and that enforcement in the UK would be straightforward. She had also disclosed losing an approximately £12,000 bonus after taking sick leave, but the court noted she was not claiming loss of earnings in the proceedings. It found that the bonus loss did not establish special circumstances.
Justice Bolger concluded that enforcing a costs order in the UK would be more difficult and expensive than enforcement in Ireland because the UK was outside the EU. The court therefore held that the Authority was entitled to security for a proportion of its costs. It gave an indicative view that the Authority should receive the costs of the motion, with final orders to follow.