The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Irish Aviation Authority’s appeal over who should assess damages in a defamation action after an accepted offer of amends. It upheld the High Court’s decision that the plaintiff was entitled to have a jury assess damages if the parties could not agree on the amount.
The claim arose from three emails sent by an Authority member in June and July 2003. The plaintiff issued proceedings in April 2014. In May 2015, the Authority made an unqualified offer to make amends under section 22 of the Defamation Act 2009, which the plaintiff accepted by letter the following month.
The parties could not agree on settlement terms, including damages. The plaintiff sought directions for a judge and jury to determine the amount under section 23(1)(c). The Authority argued that a judge sitting alone should decide the issue.
In May 2016, the High Court ruled that the plaintiff could have a jury assess damages. The Authority appealed that ruling. The Court of Appeal considered whether section 23(1)(c), which says that disputed damages or costs “shall be determined by the High Court”, excluded a jury.
Delivering the judgment, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the issue was difficult and the statutory language could have been clearer. He concluded that the right to jury assessment had not been displaced. The court reasoned that assessing damages remained a traditional jury function and that the 2009 Act did not use clear language to remove that role. The judge also rejected the argument that section 5 of the Interpretation Act 2005 required a different reading.
The ruling concerns the forum for assessing damages when the parties cannot agree after an offer of amends has been accepted. It does not set the damages amount in this case. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court ruling in place.