The High Court ordered Ryanair Ltd to disclose pilot briefings and aviation safety material in a defamation case brought against Ray Quigley, while refusing two other categories of documents sought by him.
In a judgment delivered on 9 December 2015, Mr Justice Binchy considered Quigley’s application for discovery in Ryanair’s proceedings, which sought damages over a statement published on The Professional Pilots Rumour Network. The statement alleged that Ryanair operated at airports with limited infrastructure to reduce costs and that this compromised passenger safety. It also referred to “very many close calls”. These were allegations and opinions in the statement, not findings by the court.
Quigley denied publishing the statement to anyone other than Ryanair. His defence relied on honest opinion and fair and reasonable publication under the Defamation Act 2009. He did not plead a defence of truth. Ryanair agreed at the hearing to provide discovery of the company policy covered by the first category in the application.
The judge ordered discovery of two further categories: airport-specific pilot briefings, and reports, communications, advice or warnings from aviation authorities and other specified bodies about air safety at relevant airports. The order covered the three years before 14 January 2012, rather than the five years originally requested. The judge considered those materials relevant to the airport shortcomings pleaded in Quigley’s defence and potentially capable of supporting his honest-opinion defence.
The court refused discovery of internal or external reports of near-misses. Quigley had supplied no facts in support of the statement’s reference to “very many close calls”, and the allegation was not pleaded in his defence. The judge concluded that this request sought to establish facts for an allegation rather than support an existing plea, making it a fishing exercise.
The judge also refused the request for documents relating to a survey by the Ryanair Pilots’ Group. No reason had been given to show why those documents were relevant or necessary to the proceedings.
The ruling concerned discovery only. It did not decide whether the statement was defamatory, whether its allegations were true, or whether either pleaded defence would succeed.