Ryanair Plc v. Aer Rianta Cpt [2003] IESC 62 (2 December 2003)

Ryanair Plc v. Aer Rianta Cpt [2003] IESC 62 (2 December 2003)

The Supreme Court held that the 1999 amendment to Order 31, rule 12 did not change the substantive law of discovery but imposed procedural requirements for specificity and reasons. Ryanair's requests, as amended, were sufficiently precise and necessary for fair disposal of the action. Discovery should not be refused on the basis that alternative means of proof exist, particularly where Aer Rianta denied all relevant facts. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of varying the categories of documents to be discovered as specified by the Court.

Citation
[2003] IESC 62
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Ryanair Plc; Defendant/appellant: Aer Rianta CPT
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order for Discovery
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Abuse of Dominant Position, Competition Law (eu and National), Procedural Requirements for Discovery
Competition Law Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Abuse of Dominant Position Competition Law (eu and National) Procedural Requirements for Discovery

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryanair Plc

Plaintiff/respondent

Aer Rianta CPT

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order for Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended Order 31, rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts changed the substantive law regarding discovery
  2. 2 Whether Ryanair's requests for discovery were sufficiently precise and necessary for fair disposal of the case
  3. 3 Whether discovery should be refused where alternative means of proof exist

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the 1999 amendment to Order 31, rule 12 did not change the substantive law of discovery but imposed procedural requirements for specificity and reasons. Ryanair's requests, as amended, were sufficiently precise and necessary for fair disposal of the action. Discovery should not be refused on the basis that alternative means of proof exist, particularly where Aer Rianta denied all relevant facts. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of varying the categories of documents to be discovered as specified by the Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order for discovery varied: Ryanair entitled to discovery of specified categories of documents as set out in the judgment of McCracken J; some categories narrowed or refused; discovery refused for matters not pleaded or irrelevant.