The Court of Appeal has dismissed Ryanair’s appeal against an order requiring it to provide a redacted internal safety investigation report to a former pilot defending a defamation action. The order permits access to the report under strict limits on who may receive and view it; the appeal concerned inspection of the report, not the trial of the defamation claim.
Ryanair sued the pilot over online posts in December 2012 concerning a serious incident involving a Ryanair flight near Memmingen Airport in Germany. The posts criticised company procedures and culture and raised safety concerns. Ryanair alleged they were defamatory. The pilot denied the meanings Ryanair attributed to the posts and pleaded, among other defences, truth for two alleged meanings, fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest, and qualified privilege. Those issues remain for trial.
The dispute before the appeal court concerned an internal Ryanair Base Investigation Report about the incident. Ryanair had agreed to discover the report but supplied a version that was almost entirely redacted. The High Court ordered production with the names of people mentioned or providing information, and details identifying them, removed. It also restricted copies and circulation to the pilot’s solicitor, counsel and specified experts, and required the report to be returned after the proceedings or settlement, subject to appeal.
Ryanair argued that disclosure could undermine confidentiality and deter frank participation in future aviation investigations. The Court of Appeal accepted that the report was confidential and that aviation legislation required the court to weigh the benefits of disclosure against possible harm to current or future safety investigations. It found no basis to overturn the High Court’s balancing exercise, which had considered the confidentiality concerns alongside the report’s potential value to the defence and the safeguards imposed.
The appeal court also upheld the finding that Ryanair’s agreement to discover the report prevented it from later contesting its relevance and necessity on the same grounds, while leaving confidentiality and statutory protection open to argument. After reviewing the unredacted report, the court agreed it could assist the defence and was necessary for fair disposal of the case. The court did not disclose the report’s contents.
The court rejected Ryanair’s challenge to the High Court’s costs order. It proposed that Ryanair pay the pilot’s appeal costs, subject to Ryanair applying within 14 days for a different order. The court also said it was willing to extend the parties’ ability to apply to address alternative arrangements for the pilot to view the report, if they could not agree on a way to preserve its restricted circulation.