The High Court has refused Ryanair’s application to strike out the defence in its defamation proceedings against the Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union (IMPACT), the Irish Airline Pilots Association (IALPA) and pilot Evan Cullen, and declined to order further searches for deleted electronic material.
The motion concerned discovery in the underlying case, which arises from statements Cullen made in an RTÉ Radio One interview on 16 August 2012 about Ryanair’s fuel policy. The statements were later reported in the Irish edition of the Sunday Times. The defendants pleaded, among other matters, truth and honest opinion. Those issues were not decided on this motion.
Ryanair argued that discovery was inadequate, particularly concerning electronic documents that may have been deleted and could be recovered. It sought to strike out the defence or, alternatively, require the defendants to search for and reconstitute relevant electronic material. At the hearing, Ryanair also proposed that an independent expert examine IALPA’s database.
The court reviewed evidence about IALPA’s records and searches. The defendants said IALPA used five computers connected to one server, kept limited member information electronically, and often handled individual assistance matters through hard-copy files that were returned to members or destroyed when resolved. A pilot responsible for the server described keyword and file searches, as well as a scan for deleted files. That scan found thousands of deleted files and documents, which he said were largely system or temporary files; his searches identified no additional material relevant to discovery.
Ryanair’s cybersecurity expert questioned whether the evidence explained the overall discovery process, including how document sources and custodians had been identified. Cullen replied that the five computers were connected to the server, that email attachments were included in searches, and that the defendants had conducted a diligent electronic search.
The judge found no evidence that the defendants had wilfully or culpably withheld discovery, or that the discovery approach created a real risk of an unfair trial. She refused to strike out the defence. She also held that the electronic searches were reasonable and adequate in the circumstances, and that further investigation was unlikely to produce relevant material and would be disproportionate and unnecessary. The request to examine the database through an independent expert was not part of the motion, so the judge said it did not need to be considered.