The High Court has ordered both sides to disclose documents in Ryanair Limited’s defamation proceedings against Channel Four Television Corporation and Blakeway Productions Limited, with some of the defendants’ requested categories limited to specified periods.
In a judgment delivered on 12 December 2014, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the issues in the case were identifiable from the statement of claim and defence. The absence of a reply from Ryanair did not change that, he said.
Ryanair is seeking damages over a 30-minute programme broadcast on Channel 4 on 12 August 2013 and produced by Blakeway. The judgment records that pilots interviewed in the programme criticised Ryanair’s fuel policy, cockpit voice recording practices and employment policies. Ryanair pleaded that the broadcast conveyed defamatory meanings, including that its practices endangered passengers and that it was unsafe. Those are allegations in the pleadings, not findings made in this discovery ruling.
The defendants pleaded that the programme’s words were true in substance and fact insofar as they raised reasonable grounds to investigate possible consequences for passenger safety. They also relied on honest opinion and fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest under the Defamation Act 2009. The judgment does not decide those defences.
Ryanair sought four categories of material from the defendants, including documents used in making the programme, records of editorial decisions and research, and records of an independent investigation referred to in the defence. The court ordered discovery of categories (b), (c) and (d). It refused category (a)—all documents used in making the programme—as too general, saying it would make the other categories unnecessary.
The defendants sought eight categories from Ryanair. The court ordered discovery in each category, but restricted the time covered by categories 1 and 7 to the three years before 26 July 2012, including that date, and excluded later material for category 1. For category 3, the judgment states the period as “1st July 2009” without specifying an end date.
The ruling concerns discovery only. It does not determine whether the broadcast was defamatory or whether any pleaded defence succeeds.