The High Court ordered the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) to provide Channel 4 with two categories of documents in Ryanair’s defamation action over a 2013 Channel 4 programme. It refused the broadcaster’s requests for two other categories.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Meenan on 9 November 2017, concerned non-party discovery. It did not decide whether the programme’s allegations were true or determine Ryanair’s defamation claim.
Channel 4’s “Dispatches” programme, “Secrets from the Cockpit”, was broadcast on 12 August 2013. It alleged that Ryanair compromised safety in pursuit of financial gain, citing fuel emergencies declared by three flights diverted from Madrid to Valencia in July 2012. The programme also raised issues about Ryanair’s fuel policies, cockpit voice recordings and pilot work practices. Ryanair sued for defamation, seeking damages including aggravated and exemplary damages. Channel 4’s defence included a plea that the matters broadcast were true.
Channel 4 sought four categories of records from the IAA, which is not a party to the action. The requests concerned the IAA’s report on the Valencia diversions; IAA press releases issued on 12 and 15 August 2013; a document headed “response issued to Daily Mail 8th August, 2013 re Ryanair Plc”; and records about a September 2012 meeting and joint statement involving Irish and Spanish government departments.
Ryanair’s pleadings relied on the IAA report in support of its claim for aggravated or exemplary damages, arguing that the report explained why the aircraft were close to final reserve fuel after flying longer than planned because of severe weather. The judge said the parties’ pleadings made the roles of both the IAA and Spain’s aviation authority relevant to the proceedings.
The judge ordered discovery under category 1, covering documents relating to the IAA report and its creation and circulation. He noted possible duplication with documents sought in discovery between the parties, but said the category was relevant and necessary. He also ordered category 2 documents concerning the creation and circulation of the two IAA press releases, finding them relevant and necessary because Ryanair relied on the report in its damages claim.
He refused category 3, saying Channel 4 had not established that the requested material was relevant or necessary; the implied suggestion of an “unhealthy” relationship between Ryanair and the IAA was not pleaded. He refused category 4 because Channel 4 had not shown the meeting and joint-statement records were necessary for third-party discovery. He also considered relevant Spanish-authority material covered by category 1.
The IAA had raised confidentiality concerns, including a possible chilling effect on aviation safety reporting. The judge said confidentiality was not an issue in this application because, in a separate motion, he had concluded that disclosure of aviation-safety documents was warranted subject to certain redactions.