The High Court has refused Ryanair Limited and Ryanair Holdings plc’s requests to strike out the defence in their defamation action against five defendants, order further discovery and inspect emails without redactions. The ruling concerns discovery and inspection; it does not decide whether the publication was defamatory or whether any pleaded defence will succeed.
The plaintiffs’ action concerns a statement in a 12 September 2013 “Pilot Update” published on Ryanair Pilot Group headed paper. The statement referred to Ryanair’s share price falling 11.54%, a negative management statement, possible downward revisions to profit targets and managers selling shares in late June. Ryanair alleged that it conveyed meanings including market manipulation, misleading investors and facilitating insider dealing. The defendants denied those meanings, described the text as dry financial analysis and pleaded, among other defences, truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. Those issues are for the trial court.
Ryanair argued that the defendants had not met their discovery obligations and sought inspection of documents listed in the first part of a schedule to an affidavit sworn by Ewert Van Zwol on 21 August 2014. Some names and email addresses had been removed from the documents. The defendants said they had confidentiality commitments to the non-parties concerned and that disclosure could deter pilots and others from raising concerns with the Interim Council of the Ryanair Pilot Group.
Mr Justice Max Barrett found no wilful default or negligence warranting the exceptional step of striking out the defence. He said the defendants had addressed the discovery issues raised, including through supplemental affidavits. He also refused further discovery: the plaintiffs had not identified a sufficient basis in the pleadings or disclosed material to show that additional relevant documents had been withheld.
The judge also refused inspection of the unredacted details. He considered the redacted identities irrelevant to the meaning of the publication and said that the attitude of non-parties could not, by itself, establish legal malice by the defendants. Given the confidentiality claimed and the absence of a necessary litigation advantage to the plaintiffs, he found disclosure was not needed for the fair disposal of the action. The existing redactions—limited to third parties’ names and email addresses—were proportionate.
All reliefs sought in the motion were refused. The judgment did not determine the merits of the defamation action. Barrett J said the discovery dispute had delayed the case for more than two years and expressed the hope that the parties would treat those issues as closed and proceed with the case.