The High Court has allowed Ryanair DAC to issue a third-party notice in a personal injuries case brought by Kevin O’Regan over an alleged assault on a flight from Bari to Dublin Airport on 7 July 2017.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 10 December 2018, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor ruled that the airline had shown it could claim one or more remedies against the proposed third party under the court rules, and that the proposed claim concerned substantially the same subject matter as O’Regan’s case.
O’Regan alleges that he was assaulted by the proposed third party during the flight. His summons pleads that the alleged act of another passenger constituted an accident under Article 17.1 of the Montreal Convention. It also pleads, in the alternative, that Ryanair was negligent, including in failing to take appropriate care.
Ryanair’s defence disputes that the claim falls within Article 17 and denies that any act, default or omission by the airline caused or contributed to the incident. Those matters remain disputed; the judgment did not decide liability or whether the Montreal Convention applies to the claim.
O’Regan opposed the application, arguing that Ryanair and the proposed third party could not be concurrent wrongdoers under the Civil Liability Act 1961 and that the third party should not be joined. The judge said that objection was not well founded at this stage. He referred to the alternative negligence plea, the issues raised in Ryanair’s defence, and a Court of Appeal judgment that contemplated an airline bringing third-party proceedings even where a claimant might not be able to pursue the third party as an additional defendant.
The order gives Ryanair liberty to issue the third-party notice in the form exhibited to an affidavit. The judge directed that the issues between the parties be heard as the trial judge may direct when O’Regan’s claim comes to trial. The third party may file a defence within 28 days after entering an appearance. The time for serving the notice was extended to 35 days from its issue because of anticipated service difficulties.
The ruling concerns permission to bring the third-party proceedings. It does not determine the plaintiff’s personal injuries claim or the proposed third party’s liability.