The High Court refused Ryanair Limited’s application to compel pilot John Goss to provide further particulars in the airline’s defamation proceedings, ruling that the information already supplied was enough for Ryanair to deliver its reply and defence to a counterclaim. The court extended the time for those filings by four weeks.
The application arose from comments Goss made during a television broadcast on 12 August 2013 about confidence in aviation authorities. Ryanair alleged that the comments meant, among other things, that it was not a safe airline, and alleged malice. Goss denied that the comments were defamatory or carried the meanings Ryanair claimed. His defence pleaded that two other alleged meanings about aviation authorities overlooking safety issues were true, and that certain meanings were honest opinions.
Ryanair’s motion sought replies to a 2014 notice for particulars. At the hearing, the airline initially pursued five disputed requests, then abandoned three. It revised the remaining two: one sought instances of alleged aggressive management behaviour, and the other sought instances in which Ryanair pilots had reportedly raised issues with the Irish Aviation Authority without receiving a substantive response.
Justice Tony O’Connor said the motion was not an abuse of process, but criticised the length and handling of the particulars process. He noted that an earlier request contained 46 items and that the court had been presented with revised requests only during the hearing. He also said documentation supplied in February 2014 had received little or no regard when the requests were drafted.
The judge concluded that Ryanair had possessed the necessary particulars since early 2014 to plead its reply and defence to the counterclaim. He found the defendant had provided sufficient particulars about the alleged management behaviour. The second revised request sought evidence to prove the case rather than information about the nature of the case, which the court said was not the purpose of an order for particulars.
The court refused both the wide order originally sought and the revised application. It said any dispute about evidence extending beyond the particulars already provided could be raised with the trial court at or before trial. After the judgment, the court extended the deadline for Ryanair’s reply and defence to the counterclaim by four weeks. The judgment did not determine the underlying defamation claims.