The Court of Appeal has dismissed Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings plc’s appeal against the dismissal of their defamation action over a bulletin sent to pilots in 2013.
The High Court jury found that the bulletin meant Ryanair was guilty of market manipulation, but rejected three other alleged meanings: that Ryanair misled investors, knowingly facilitated insider dealing or conspired with managers to abuse its shares. The jury found no malice by any of the three defendants. Because the trial judge had ruled that the bulletin was published on an occasion of qualified privilege, the claim was dismissed.
Ryanair’s appeal challenged, among other matters, the trial judge’s refusal to discharge the jury after an email surfaced during the trial. The email, sent to Martin Duffy by an unidentified pilot, raised questions about possible insider dealing and included an incorrect claim about a share sale. The Court of Appeal said the respondents had no legal right to obtain Duffy’s private email, and it was not discoverable by them. It also found no evidence that the respondents knew of the email before it emerged at trial. Ryanair was allowed to recall witnesses for further questioning, and the appeal court found that the trial judge had properly addressed any resulting prejudice.
The court rejected Ryanair’s arguments that Duffy’s state of mind could be attributed to the respondents or that the late email prevented Ryanair from joining him or pleading vicarious liability. The court noted that Ryanair had known of Duffy’s role in drafting the bulletin years before trial, and had chosen not to pursue those steps. It also concluded that Duffy was not shown to be the respondents’ agent for discovery purposes.
The appeal court upheld the qualified privilege ruling. It accepted the trial judge’s findings that the bulletin as a whole was of interest to Ryanair pilots and that the respondents believed they were communicating with pilots. The judge had also found that the registration process enabled voting and surveys, rather than defining who counted as an RPG member. Ryanair had not shown that there was no credible evidence supporting those findings.
The court also upheld the trial judge’s decisions to exclude evidence about “open windows” for share dealing and to limit evidence about alleged briefings to investors. It found that Ryanair had not established that these rulings made the trial unfair. With no basis to overturn the jury’s verdict or the trial judge’s rulings, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.