The Supreme Court allowed Padraig Higgins’s appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal’s damages award in his defamation action against the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA). By majority, it substituted €175,000 in general damages and €50,000 in aggravated damages. A unanimous 10% discount brought the total to €202,500. The parties were given seven days to make written submissions on any consequential orders.
The appeal concerned emails sent by IAA officials to the UK Civil Aviation Authority after Higgins and another pilot made an emergency landing in Wales in April 2013. The IAA had admitted that statements in its emails were defamatory. A jury had awarded Higgins €300,000 in general damages and €130,000 in aggravated damages, then applied a 10% discount for an offer of amends, producing €387,000.
The Court of Appeal reduced the general award to €70,000 and aggravated damages to €15,000, leaving a discounted total of €76,500. Higgins appealed. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the appeal should be allowed and the Court of Appeal judgment set aside. The decision on the replacement awards was divided: three judges would have set aside the jury’s general damages award, while two dissented; the majority then substituted €175,000. On aggravated damages, four judges supported €50,000 and one dissented.
The court said the jury’s €300,000 general damages award was objectively disproportionate, despite the seriousness of the allegations and the weight due to a jury’s assessment. It considered the publication limited in reach but directed to people and agencies influential in Higgins’s profession. The judgment also discussed the IAA’s later defence of the action, including further allegations in correspondence that the court said were unsupported by the evidence. It held that this conduct aggravated the injury and warranted a separate award, while distinguishing those later allegations from the original defamatory emails.
The court upheld the 10% discount, noting that the offer of amends came years after the emails and its text was approved during the 2019 High Court trial. The judgment also gave guidance that juries should receive directions on damages, including broad ranges drawn from cases where useful, while assessing all the circumstances. The court stressed that such ranges are illustrations, not rigid rules.