Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t.

Last updated

Ryanair P.L.C. v Aer Rianta C.P.T.
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameRyanair P.L.C. v Aer Rianta C.P.T. [2003] 4 IR 264
Decided2nd Day December 2003
Citation(s)[2003] IESC 62, [2003] 4 IR 264, [2004] 1 ILRM 241
Case history
Appealed fromThe Irish High Court
Appealed toThe Irish Supreme Court
Case opinions
The applicant does not have to prove that the documents sought to be discovered are in any sense absolutely necessary but rather that he would suffer a litigious disadvantage by not seeing them.
Court membership
Judges sittingFennelly J., McCracken J., and Denham J.
Case opinions
Decision byFennelly J., and McCracken J.
ConcurrenceDenham J.
Keywords
Discovery, Necessity, Relevance

Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t. [2003] IESC 62; [2003] 4 IR 264 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case that dealt with the law of discovery. [1] [2] In his judgement, Fennelly J. reinforced the test that discovery will only be granted if the court is satisfied that the documents sought are: (i) relevant to the issues in the proceedings; and (ii) that discovery is necessary for fairly disposing of the matter and for saving costs. [3] The court noted that in order for documents to satisfy this test the applicant does not have to prove that they are, "in any sense absolutely necessary". [3] [4] Rather all he has to do is prove that he would suffer a "litigious disadvantage by not seeing them". [3] The burden of proof rests firmly on the party seeking the discovery.

Contents

Background

In September 1999, Ryanair alleged that Aer Rianta (now Dublin Airport Authority) had committed (and was continuing to commit) various breaches "of both national and European Community competition law". [3] In particular, Ryanair alleged that Aer Rianta, as operator of the Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports, was the main provider of essential services and facilities to airlines using those airports. [3] Ryanair also alleged that Air Rianta used its dominant position and its relationship with Aer Lingus to favour the latter at Ryanair's expense. [3]

Solicitors for Ryanair wrote to Aer Rianta in December 2000 seeking voluntary discovery pursuant to order 31 rule 12(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, as amended by the provisions of statutory instrument No 233 of 1999 entitled Rules of the Superior Courts (2) (Discovery) 3rd August 1999. The request set out categories of documents under 15 headings. The request was supported by reasons and provided for documents to be provided. [3] Aer Rianta claimed that many of the categories of documents sought were "irrelevant and not necessary to decide the matters at issue". [3] Aer Rianta also claimed that Ryanair did not need the documents requested because they had "alternative means of establishing the relevant facts". [3]

In the High Court, Ryanair sought an order compelling Aer Rianta to provide the documents they sought. [3] In July 2002, Lavan J in the High Court granted Ryanair an order for discovery of all documents sought. [3] Aer Rianta appealed to the Supreme Court.

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, but varied the order of discovery. [3] [4] As a result, not all of the documents sought were granted by the Supreme Court as one request was seen not as a request for the discovery of documents, but as a result for information, another request was held as being "extremely vague and wide ranging", [3] while another request for documents was amended by the Court. [4]

The primary issue before the Court was considering whether the amendment of order 31 rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts impacted the current laws of discovery greatly or not. [3] Aer Rianta maintained the argument that Ryanair had failed to comply with the requirements of order 31 rule 12. Moreover the requests for discovery were too vague. [3] In particular, Aer Rianta relied strongly on the judgement of Morris P. in Swords v Western Proteins Ltd. [5] They said that following this decision "it was necessary for a party seeking discovery to specify the document or documents sought with precision and also to give such reasons as would demonstrate that their discovery was necessary". [3] Ryanair argued that while "a procedural change had been effected, this did not change the basic law concerning discovery". [4] Aer Rianta went on to argue that following the amendment of order 31 rule 12, discovery was now more difficult to obtain and that Ryanair had "other means of establishing most of the relevant facts". [3] Ryanair submitted that the amendment to order 31 rule 12 introduced the requirement of a "preliminary request for voluntary discovery" [3] and of a verifying affidavit. [3] The effect was "to eliminate the right to obtain an order for general discovery or to obtain any discovery without a grounding affidavit". [3]

The amendment to order 31 rule 12 meant three things. One, a party, before applying to the court, must obtain the agreement of the opposing party "to make voluntary discovery within a reasonable time frame". [3] Second, they must mention the exact categories of documents for which they want voluntary discovery. Lastly, the party must submit an affidavit outlining that the discovery of the documents is necessary for the purposes of fairness. [3] Nevertheless, as far as this case is concerned the Supreme Court concluded that the amendment to order 31 rule 12 did not change the parts concerning necessity. The only reason a court should adjourn or reject an application for discovery is if it fails to show that there is a requirement of fairness or for saving costs. [3] Under the current rule, there is a burden on the applicant to demonstrate that there are valid reasons for each category of the documents which they are seeking. [3] So the burden of proof is greater on the person bringing the application and this is the only effective change that has happened after the amendment.

The Court also restated the meaning of the words "disposing fairly of the cause or matter'' as given in order 31 rule 12 regarding necessity. [3] The Court referred to the decision of Bingham MR in Taylor v Anderton [6] who explained that this concepts means thinking about whether the documents are necessary for a "fair determination "of the issue at hand. [6] Additionally, the purpose behind the rule is to make sure that one party does not suffer because the documents are not handed for inspection. [3]

In conclusion, the Court held that Ryanair had satisfied the conditions of order 31 rule 12. However, the Court found that certain documents that Ryanair had requested were not necessary. The Court dismissed Aer Rianta's claims although varied the order of discovery. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affidavit</span> Written legal statement, made under oath

An affidavit is a written statement voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation which is administered by a person who is authorized to do so by law. Such a statement is witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath on penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity and is required in court proceedings.

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party had no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

In law, a summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion may be called the moving party, or may simply be the movant. The party opposing the motion is the nonmoving party or nonmovant.

A subpoena duces tecum, or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. In some jurisdictions, it can also be issued by legislative bodies such as county boards of supervisors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DAA (Irish company)</span>

DAA, previously Dublin Airport Authority, is a commercial semi-state airport company in Ireland. The company owns and operates Dublin Airport and Cork Airport. Its other subsidiaries include the travel retail business Aer Rianta International and DAA International.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

In American procedural law, a continuance is the postponement of a hearing, trial, or other scheduled court proceeding at the request of either or both parties in the dispute, or by the judge sua sponte. In response to delays in bringing cases to trial, some states have adopted "fast-track" rules that sharply limit the ability of judges to grant continuances. However, a motion for continuance may be granted when necessitated by unforeseeable events, or for other reasonable cause articulated by the movant, especially when the court deems it necessary and prudent in the "interest of justice."

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called “act-of-production doctrine.” Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.

Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code is a federal statute that allows a litigant (party) to a legal proceeding outside the United States to apply to an American court to obtain evidence for use in the non-US proceeding, a process known as discovery. The full name of Section 1782 is "Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals".

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that Ohio had violated the equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of two political parties by refusing to print their candidates' names on the ballot.

An initial conference is one of the first steps of the discovery process in a civil case. In the U.S. federal court system, initial conferences are governed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore constitutional law</span>

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

<i>Gilroy v Flynn</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilroy v Flynn [2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. While the Court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff.

<i>B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134; was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the determination of article 34.5.3° of the Constitution when the Court can grant an allowance for an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The ruling declared that the Supreme Court "is no longer a Court for the correction of error but rather a Court which has the principal constitutional task of determining issues of general importance."

<i>McInerney Homes Ltd v Cos Acts 1990</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McInerney Homes Ltd v Cos Acts 1990 [2011] IESC 31 is one of the few Irish Supreme Court cases on the topic of examinership under the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990. The Court held that the onus of proof under the legislation lay with the Examiner to show that a proposed scheme of debt restructuring was not unfair to any interested party.

References

  1. 1 2 Biehler, Hilary, Declan McGrath, Emily Egan McGrath (2018). Delany and McGrath on Civil Procedure (4th ed.). Round Hall.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ↑ Andrew Fitzpatrick, Discovery in the Master’s Court: Summary of the written decisions of the Master, 21 March 2011, https://www.lawlibrary.ie/media/lawlibrary/media/Secure/20110321DiscoveryFitzPatrick.pdf
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 "Ryanair Plc v. Aer Rianta Cpt [2003] IESC 62 (2 December 2003)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  4. 1 2 3 4 "Ryanair wins right to see Aer Rianta documents". The Irish Times. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
  5. ↑ Swords v Western Proteins Ltd [2001] 1 ILRM 481, [2000] IEHC 204
  6. 1 2 Taylor v Anderton [1995] 1 WLR 447
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.