The Supreme Court has dismissed Ryanair Limited’s appeal against a High Court refusal to strike out three paragraphs of Aer Rianta CPT’s statement of claim. It held that Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts allows a court to strike out an entire pleading, but not part of one.
The ruling concerns an interlocutory motion in Aer Rianta’s main action against Ryanair. The dispute arose from statements that Aer Rianta alleged Ryanair made in a January 2001 press release and on its website about airport charges. Aer Rianta pleaded that Ryanair represented the passenger service charge as IR£9.50 per person, while Aer Rianta said the charge was IR£7.20. Those assertions were allegations in the pleadings, not findings in this appeal.
Aer Rianta’s claim includes allegations of defamation and malicious falsehood, and seeks several forms of relief. In paragraphs 15 to 17, it also alleged that Ryanair was unjustly enriched by collecting charges from passengers without paying the full amount to Aer Rianta, and by keeping charges when passengers did not fly. Ryanair denied the defamation claim and disputed Aer Rianta’s standing to pursue unjust enrichment.
Ryanair asked the High Court to strike out only paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 under Order 19, rule 28, which permits a pleading to be struck out where it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer. The High Court refused the motion in July 2003, and Ryanair appealed.
Delivering judgment on 2 April 2004, Denham J said the rule’s wording referred to a “pleading” as a whole. She contrasted it with Order 19, rule 27, which expressly allows a court to strike out or amend “any matter in any” pleading. She also said that allowing selected passages to be struck out under rule 28 could generate additional interlocutory disputes and cost.
The court’s decision was limited to its jurisdiction under Order 19, rule 28. The judgment said inherent jurisdiction was not argued and formed no part of the decision. Because the motion sought removal of only part of a pleading, the court did not address the merits of that application. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order refusing the motion. The underlying action and the allegations in the statement of claim were not decided by this ruling.