The High Court has ordered the Irish Aviation Authority to disclose documents in a personal injuries action brought by an employee who says he suffered catastrophic injuries in a fall during a work mountain exercise in 2016.
The order, made by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 26 February 2020, concerns discovery before trial. It does not decide whether the exercise was compulsory or determine liability for the fall.
The plaintiff’s pleadings say the exercise, organised by the Authority and involving Carrauntoohil and Cnoc na Tionne, was effectively compulsory, with little information or assessment of his suitability. They state that he fell about 574 feet during the descent and suffered injuries that left him tetraplegic, dependent on assistance and unable to return to the family home. These are allegations in the pleadings, not findings made in this judgment.
The Authority said the exercise was organised and supervised by mountaineer Pat Falvey, the second defendant. The discovery motion against Falvey had already been resolved by consent, with an order made on the same date. The judge dealt with the contested categories sought from the Authority, applying relevance, necessity and proportionality.
The Authority must disclose agreed categories numbered 1, 2, 6 to 12, 15, 17, 18 and 23, as well as categories 3, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 26, subject to the judge’s qualifications. These include communications about restrictions on taking leave during team-building exercises from 2013; equipment suitability material not already covered by category 11; relevant statements from witnesses or others connected with the incident; safety-related feedback on away days since 2013; and communications with the Health and Safety Authority about the incident.
The personnel-file disclosure is limited to documents relevant to the Authority’s claims of contributory negligence and the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition. Category 13 is limited to matters not already covered by category 11, and category 19 to safety-related feedback. The order also requires the agreed categories, with the judge noting that the order is subject to directions on timing and the person making the discovery affidavit.
The judge refused categories seeking the names and positions of people notified of or attending the exercise, saying the requests as framed were matters for particulars or differed from the requests made. He also declined a broad request for documentation about later away days and a request about enquiries into Falvey’s qualifications, which he considered covered in relevant part by another category. A request concerning the choice of mountain was covered for 2016 by category 23, while later years were not relevant to the issues before him.