The High Court allowed the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) to make a correction and apology in a defamation case brought by airline captain Padraig Higgins, even though the application was procedurally irregular and the jury trial had begun. The court directed that the approved statement be read to the judge in the jury’s absence and ruled that the jury must not be told the amount of the IAA’s €25,000 offer to make amends.
Higgins, an Aer Lingus Airbus captain, sued over emails the IAA published between June and July 2013. The authority accepted that the statements were defamatory and bore meanings alleged by Higgins, including that he had flown without the appropriate licence or clearance and breached Irish criminal and Revenue law. Those meanings were allegations attributed to the statements, not findings made in this ruling.
Higgins accepted the IAA’s unconditional offer to make amends in June 2015. The parties could not agree on the wording and publication of an apology, or on damages and costs. The IAA submitted four draft apologies between 2015 and February 2019. The jury trial had commenced before the authority sought leave for a court-approved statement.
Justice Bernard J. Barton found that the application did not follow the required procedure: it had not been brought by notice of motion supported by an affidavit and should have been made before trial. But he refused to reject it on those grounds. He said the rules allowed the court to address non-compliance on appropriate terms, and that refusing leave would undermine the statutory offer-of-amends process. He allowed the application on condition that the IAA file a notice of motion and grounding affidavit; a short adjournment was to be granted so the trial could proceed.
The court approved a statement acknowledging that the IAA had published false and defamatory statements about Higgins, that they were unsubstantiated and caused him upset and reputational damage, and apologising for the episode and the delay in resolution. It also included a retraction and undertakings about publication to specified recipients and a request to the UK Civil Aviation Authority to remove an email from its file. The judge stressed that approval concerned statutory sufficiency, not whether the wording satisfied Higgins. The statement was to be read by the IAA’s counsel before the jury’s opening address, to the judge and parties but without the jury.
The jury could be told that an offer to make amends had been made, because it had to consider the offer when assessing damages. The €25,000 figure, however, was not to be disclosed. The court said knowledge of the amount could constrain the jury’s assessment.