Supreme Court Justice Gerard Hogan proposed increasing the general damages awarded to airline pilot Padraig Higgins in his defamation case against the Irish Aviation Authority from €70,000 to €100,000. In a separate judgment delivered on 7 March 2022, he would have left the Court of Appeal’s €15,000 aggravated damages award unchanged, producing a total of €103,500 after a 10% reduction.
The case arose from emails sent by Authority members to counterparts at the UK Civil Aviation Authority after two microlight aircraft made precautionary landings in Wales in April 2013. Higgins was piloting one of them. The Authority accepted that the emails were defamatory and apologised. The Supreme Court judgment records that the emails called into question Higgins’s suitability as a pilot and raised aviation safety concerns. The feared consequences, including losing his licence or senior role with Aer Lingus, did not occur.
A jury had awarded €300,000 in general damages and €130,000 in aggravated damages. The Court of Appeal found both sums excessive, reducing them to €70,000 and €15,000 respectively, with the 10% reduction for the Authority’s offer of amends left in place. Higgins appealed, seeking restoration of the jury’s aggravated damages award.
Hogan J considered the emails serious, but said their circulation was restricted to a small group of aviation regulators. Comparing the case with other defamation awards, he placed it between Christie v TV3 and Ward v Donegal Times, and considered the Court of Appeal’s general damages figure too low. He proposed €100,000 instead.
He found no proper basis to increase aggravated damages. Although he criticised the Authority for not apologising earlier and more fully, he concluded that its conduct of the defence did not justify the jury’s €130,000 award. Because the Authority had not cross-appealed the Court of Appeal’s €15,000 award, Hogan J would leave that amount undisturbed.
Hogan J’s conclusion was that the total award should be €115,000 before the 10% reduction, or €103,500 after it. This account concerns his separate judgment; the supplied extract does not state the Supreme Court’s overall final order.