The High Court has ordered the Irish Aviation Authority to disclose documents showing when its investigation team became aware that no factually sustainable evidence supported Paul McMahon’s suspension.
The order was made by Mr Justice Twomey on 29 February 2016, after hearing Mr McMahon’s discovery motion on 22 February. It is limited to documents identifying the timing of that awareness and requires discovery to be completed within six weeks.
The motion initially sought seven categories of documents. Mr McMahon withdrew Categories 2 and 3. The Authority had consented to Category 4 before the hearing. After receiving an affidavit from Niall Cummins on the Authority’s behalf, Mr McMahon withdrew his requests for Categories 5, 6 and 7. The affidavit included an undertaking that the Authority would not rely on documents in those categories. Although Mr McMahon’s counsel disputed whether the affidavit had been properly served, both parties agreed the hearing could proceed on that basis.
That left Category 1: “all documents which identify the time when it became apparent to the Respondents Investigation Team that no factually sustainable evidence existed to support the suspension which they had imposed on the Applicant.” The Authority opposed the request, according to the judgment’s account of the hearing.
Justice Twomey said the documents could be relevant to Mr McMahon’s claim for damages, including aggravated damages. His pleadings alleged that the Authority had failed to investigate an initial complaint fully and promptly, and had not proposed damages, offered amends or apologised for what he described as a serious breach of his constitutional right to his good name. These were allegations in the pleadings, not findings made in this discovery ruling.
The judge referred to an earlier High Court judgment in the case, which stated that the Authority had suspended Mr McMahon from February 2013 until June 2014. Justice Twomey reasoned that if the Authority’s team knew shortly after the suspension began that it lacked a sustainable evidential basis but took no positive steps until June 2014, that timing could aggravate damages. The discovery order does not determine when the team acquired that knowledge or whether damages are due.
The court reserved the costs of the application to the judge who hears the matter. The judgment also records that the parties intended to adjourn a hearing listed for 8 March 2015.