The High Court refused Ryanair Limited’s application for further and better particulars from former pilot Ian Somner in its defamation proceedings, but ordered the airline to disclose documents in two categories for defined periods.
In a judgment delivered on 12 December 2014, Mr Justice Michael Peart considered two motions. Ryanair alleged that remarks Somner made in the 2012 television programme “Mayday Mayday” and online defamed the company. Somner admitted publishing the words and pleaded, among other defences, honest opinion, truth, qualified privilege and fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. These remain pleaded positions in the proceedings; the judgment did not decide whether the remarks were defamatory or whether any defence would succeed.
Ryanair sought more detail about the facts underlying Somner’s defences, including alleged treatment of pilots, the experiences of other staff, and how he came to take part in the programme. The judge found that the pleadings and replies already gave Ryanair a sufficiently clear outline of the issues. A party was not entitled to obtain, through particulars, advance details of all evidence or witness identities. The court refused the application under Order 19, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The second motion concerned discovery sought by Somner. His defence included allegations about Ryanair’s fuel policy and pilot hiring practices. The court found the requested documents relevant and necessary to determine the issues raised by the pleadings, and said the request was not a fishing exercise.
For Category 1, the court ordered discovery of documents about in-flight fuel-related incidents from 26 July 2009 to 26 July 2012, including incidents on 26 July 2012. Fuel policy records were limited to 28 December 2010 to 28 December 2012. The order did not cover incident documents from 26 July 2012 onwards beyond the specified end date.
For Category 2, documents about the company’s pilot hiring policy were ordered for 28 December 2010 to 28 December 2012. The source does not state a final outcome of the defamation claim.