The High Court has directed that witnesses may be cross-examined in a judicial review brought by Irish Skydiving Club CLG and another applicant against the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA), after finding that the disputed evidence could not properly be resolved on affidavits alone.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson on 12 February 2025, concerns how the substantive judicial review should be heard. It does not determine the applicants’ challenges to the IAA’s inspections or decisions.
The judicial review concerns inspections carried out in 2022 on aircraft operated by the club. The judgment says the resulting actions included an instruction grounding an aircraft and the provisional suspension of the second applicant’s pilot licence. The applicants seek, among other relief, to have two ramp inspection reports and the licence suspension quashed. Those claims remain unresolved.
The IAA sought a plenary hearing, arguing that extensive factual disputes, serious allegations against its officials and the complexity of the issues required oral evidence. The applicants opposed a plenary hearing, citing the advanced stage of the proceedings and the costs involved. They said recordings of the inspections could resolve disputed accounts and pointed to the substantial affidavit evidence already prepared.
Justice Jackson noted that the recordings and transcripts did not cover the start of either inspection. She said they might be significant, but their partial coverage supported the need for cross-examination rather than removing it. The affidavits contained disputes about what happened during the inspections, safety procedures, the interpretation of “operator”, officials’ expertise, the use of ramp inspection powers and earlier dealings between the parties.
The judge concluded that the level of factual conflict meant the case could not be adequately determined on affidavit evidence alone. She granted leave for cross-examination, reasoning that it would allow the existing affidavits to serve as witness statements while the evidence is tested, and help contain the hearing. The judgment records that the parties had, to some degree, agreed cross-examination was appropriate.
The court did not direct a plenary hearing. Instead, it ordered case management within 14 days to establish whether either side wanted to file additional affidavits and set a timetable for them. Once those affidavits are complete, the matter can be set down for hearing. No final decision on the judicial review claims was made in this judgment.