The High Court set aside an order that had allowed Ryanair Limited to serve defamation proceedings on an airline pilot at his home in New South Wales, Australia, finding that Ireland had only a tenuous connection to the claim.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 14 October 2015, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor ruled on the defendant’s application to set aside the order authorising service outside the jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned a comment posted under the name “Squawk 7600” on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network website between 29 September and 3 November 2012. The judgment describes the words as allegedly defamatory; it does not set out a finding on their meaning or truth.
Ryanair had obtained an order from Mr Justice Ryan on 12 May 2014, after an application made without notice to the defendant. That order gave the airline liberty to serve a summons in New South Wales and extended the time to bring defamation proceedings to 28 September 2014. The Irish proceedings were issued on 15 May 2014.
The pilot also challenged service of the summons, saying it had been delivered to his wife on 11 July 2014 without an order for substituted service. The court’s recorded order, however, was limited to setting aside the order authorising service outside Ireland. It did not record a separate ruling on the challenge to service, the defamation claim, or the costs question.
Ryanair relied solely on Order 11, rule 1(f) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, arguing that the court could assume jurisdiction if a tort was committed in Ireland. The judge noted that the suggestion of an Irish tort rested on an averment by the airline’s Legal and Regulatory Affairs advisor. He also considered an uncontradicted affidavit outlining Australian law, which satisfied him there was little, if any, merit in having the claim determined in Ireland.
The judgment said there was no evidence that Ireland would be more convenient or less costly than Australia. It contrasted the airline’s extensive European operations and resources with the pilot’s circumstances: he lived in Australia with his wife and two children and had never visited Ireland. The judge said the court had to decide where it was just and reasonable for the defendant to answer the allegations, taking account of the comparative cost and convenience of proceedings.
The court therefore made the order sought in paragraph one of the pilot’s motion: setting aside the order authorising service of the proceedings outside the jurisdiction. The judgment also refers to any costs order that might be sought, but does not specify a costs determination.