TV station must provide Ryanair with documents
The High Court made the disclosure orders in advance of Ryanairâs defamation action against the station and the programme producers, Blakeway Productions, over the August 12, 2013, broadcast.
The programme saw a number of pilots express criticisms of the company in relation to its fuel policy, which allegedly led to three emergency incidents at Valencia Airport, Spain, on July 26, 2012.
The programme also alleged there was a failure by Ryanair on 12 occasions since 2005 to retain cockpit voice recordings, and there were further criticisms of employment policy of the airline.
Ryanair sued, claiming the programme was defamatory and meant, in ordinary language or by innuendo, that its employment practices and working conditions jeopardised safety and lives of passengers by putting pilots under abnormal stress and pressure.
It also claimed the broadcast wrongly meant Ryanair forces its pilots to fly with dangerously low levels of fuel and that its fuel policy will lead to a crash or that a serious incident is inevitable.
It further wrongly meant Ryanair conceals the truth in order to prevent the proper investigation of incidents and is not a safe airline.
The defendants deny defamation and they say that the words complained of by Ryanair constitute a fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest.
They also say the words used meant there were reasonable grounds to investigate whether some of the practices and operating policies of Ryanair may have consequences for passenger safety.
The words were true in substance and fact, it is claimed.
Ryanair sought orders from the court for discovery of documents used in the making of the programme which the defendants resisted.
In a judgment on the discovery issue, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the airline was entitled to all documents evidencing and/or recording all editorial decisions taken by the defendants during the course of making the programme.
Ryanair was also entitled to documents evidencing and/or recording all research and investigation carried out into the subject matter of the programme.
It was further entitled to certain documents evidencing the âindependent investigationâ into the accounts of the defendantsâ sources, he said.
He refused to order discovery of all documents used by the defendants in the making of the programme as this was âfar too generalâ.
In relation to a separate application for discovery of documents brought by the defendants against Ryanair, the judge ordered disclosure of certain categories of documents but said the period of time which they related to was too long and he was placing a restriction on that time period to strike a reasonable balance between the parties.
