The High Court has struck out John Mc Auley’s claim against Aer Lingus Limited, its pilot Frank Feeney and flight attendant Serena Wyse over an incident on a Dublin-to-Vilnius flight in March 2008. The court held that the events complained of fell within the Montreal Convention’s scope and that the claim had no reasonable chance of succeeding.
Mc Auley sought damages for slander or, alternatively, negligent misstatement, injurious falsehood, intentional infliction of mental suffering and breach of constitutional rights. The defendants applied to strike out the claim as bound to fail, disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or frivolous or vexatious.
The judgment says Mc Auley asked for four alcoholic drinks during the flight and was told that only two could be supplied at a time. At the aircraft door in Vilnius, the defendants allegedly accused him of being intoxicated. The pilot contacted Lithuanian police, who escorted Mc Auley from the aircraft, spoke to him on the tarmac and allowed him to leave. The pilot also gave police a written report, and the incident was later reported in the Lithuanian press.
Mc Auley’s submissions disputed the defendants’ account. He said he was sober, calm and polite, and argued that publication of the report in Lithuania occurred after the carriage and fell outside the Convention. The defendants denied that the statements were false or malicious. They argued that the Convention governed the incident and that the report was made under qualified privilege.
The court considered the application at the strike-out stage. It said the plaintiff’s pleaded facts had to be accepted for that purpose, and that proceedings should be struck out only in clear cases. It relied on authorities treating the Convention as an exclusive code for claims against carriers arising from international carriage, where it provides no remedy for the type of damage claimed.
The judge rejected the argument that the alleged report to police took the matter outside the Convention. The Convention’s reach, the court said, extended beyond the aircraft to places where a passenger was required to be while disembarking. The alleged actions took place on the aircraft, its steps and the immediately adjacent tarmac, so were covered by the Convention. The court ordered the claim struck out. It did not determine at trial whether the alleged statements were made, true, false or malicious.