Defamation – Particulars – Case to be met – Appellant seeking an order compelling a response to its notice for further and better particulars – Whether appellant already knew in general terms the case it might meet at trial 

Facts: The respondent, Mr Goss, was a pilot formerly employed by the appellant, Ryanair Ltd. He was, however, dismissed on the 14th August 2013, two days after the broadcast of a British television programme on Channel 4 entitled “Dispatches: Secrets from the Cockpit” in which it claimed that Ryanair had compromised passenger safety in a number of respects. Mr Goss was interviewed by the Channel 4 team and excerpts from that interview were broadcast in the Dispatches programme. Ryanair commenced defamation proceedings on 22nd August 2013. Ryanair delivered a statement of claim on 6th September 2013 and Mr Goss filed a defence and counterclaim on 16th December 2013. A detailed notice for particulars was served by Ryanair on 28th March 2014 and the respondent replied with an equally detailed response on 2nd May 2014. A notice for further and better particulars was served on 24th November 2014 and the respondent replied on 15th October 2014. The appellant was dissatisfied with this response to its requests for particulars and it issued a motion on 19th January 2015 seeking an order compelling a response to its notice for further and better particulars. At the hearing in the High Court before O’Connor J the outstanding issues were, at his suggestion, reduced to two specific requests for further and better particulars. The first disputed particular sought details of alleged aggressive management behaviour. The second disputed particular sought details of other complaints made by Ryanair pilots who had reported issues to the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) and had received no substantive responses. In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 20th October 2015 O’Connor J dismissed the application on the basis that the appellant had sufficient knowledge from the pleadings and the particulars of the case it might meet at trial ([2015] IEHC 874). Ryanair appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision. Counsel for Mr Goss clarified that all the instances of alleged aggressive management behaviour upon which the respondent relied were contained in the reports made by him to the IAA. Ryanair was already supplied with copies of this material. In those circumstances and in the light of this clarification, Hogan J accepted that the claim had been adequately particularised. Hogan J held that it was, accordingly, unnecessary to consider that issue further. 
Held by Hogan J that Ryanair knew in broad terms the case it had to meet, namely, that some of its pilots filed confidential reports with the IAA complaining about safety to which the Authority gave no substantive response. Hogan J held that while the distinction articulated by Henchy J in Cooney v Browne [1984] IR 185 between being entitled to know the range of evidence on the one hand as distinct from any particular item of evidence on the other is sometimes a subtle one, he nonetheless thought that the allegation regarding the other pilots filing confidential reports fell into the former rather than the latter category; Ryanair knew the range of evidence, but not the details of any particular item of evidence, such as the date of a particular complaint or the identity the pilot or pilots in question. Hogan J noted that the authorities were clear that Ryanair was not entitled to the latter information by way of particulars. Hogan J held that while further details and particulars in respect of these complaints would probably assist Ryanair in its conduct of the litigation, he was not persuaded that it does not already know in general terms the case it might meet at the trial. Hogan J held that he would affirm the decision of the High Court to refuse to make an order directing the respondent to answer the disputed two particulars. He would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Ryanair Limited v Goss, John