Judgment: 2018-12-10 · Court archive

Airline gets leave to bring alleged assailant into passenger’s case

The High Court allowed Ryanair DAC to issue a third-party notice, with the issue to be heard as the trial judge directs when the passenger’s claim comes to trial.

The High Court · [2018] IEHC 852

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Ryanair DAC (Defendant)
  • Tony O’Connor (Judge)
  • Peter Lennon
What

The High Court allowed Ryanair DAC to issue a third-party notice, with the issue to be heard as the trial judge directs when the passenger’s claim comes to trial.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Bari
  • Dublin Airport
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge said that objection overlooked the passenger’s alternative negligence plea, which had not been withdrawn, as well as the defence and the Court of Appeal’s discussion in Bell v Dublin Airport Authority plc. The judge found the resistance to the application ill-founded and granted leave to issue the notice in the form exhibited to an affidavit sworn by Peter Lennon on 3 October 2018.

The High Court has given Ryanair DAC permission to issue a third-party notice against a person alleged to have assaulted a passenger on a flight from Bari to Dublin in July 2017. The court directed that the third-party issue be heard as the trial judge may direct when the passenger’s claim comes to trial.

In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 10 December 2018, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor also allowed the third party 28 days from entering an appearance to file a defence to the notice.

The passenger alleges he was assaulted on the Ryanair-operated flight on 7 July 2017. His claim, issued on 21 March 2018, includes an alternative plea of negligence and breach of duty against the airline. Ryanair denies that any act, default or omission by it caused or contributed to the incident.

The airline’s defence, delivered in October 2018, includes a plea that the claim does not come within Article 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999. The passenger argued that the airline and the proposed third party could not be concurrent wrongdoers and opposed the airline’s application for permission to issue the notice. He also relied on the argument that liability under Article 17 could not be transferred to the third party.

The judge said that objection overlooked the passenger’s alternative negligence plea, which had not been withdrawn, as well as the defence and the Court of Appeal’s discussion in Bell v Dublin Airport Authority plc. The judge found the resistance to the application ill-founded and granted leave to issue the notice in the form exhibited to an affidavit sworn by Peter Lennon on 3 October 2018.

The ruling concerns the third-party procedure. It does not determine the passenger’s allegations or the airline’s liability; those remain for the underlying proceedings.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review