Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High Court, and refuses to set aside a jury dismissal of a defamation claim by an airline against persons involved in a 'nascent trade union' for pilots, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the refusal of the judge to discharge the jury following production of a document that had not been discovered did not give rise to any prejudice against the airline; (b) that the recipient of the document had not been a servant or agent of the defendants, so that the document had not been discoverable pursuant to an order of discovery; and (c) other matters raised by the airline had been adequately dealt with by the trial judge in his charge to the jury.
Noonan J (nem diss): Defamation - dismissal by jury of claim - qualified privilege - refusal to dismiss jury - emergence of undiscovered document during evidence - claim by airline against pilots - allegation made by 'nascent trade union' - use by organisation of e-mail list - 'pilot updates' - allegation that words used in 'pilot update' amounted to an allegation that the airline was guilty of market manipulation - misleading investors - abuse of market position - insider dealing - receipt of information by e-mail - document not discovered - e-mail concerning profit warning after sale of shares by airline officers - whether failure to discovery document was breach of discovery order - application to discharge - finding by jury that allegation was defamatory but not malicious - jurisdiction of appeal court - whether a fair trial could have been had following production of document - whether document had been in the power or procurement of the defendants - whether recipient of document was an agent of the defendant - whether defendant had an enforceable legal right to obtain the document - information from relevant document excluded from communication with defendants - whether defendants aware of relevant document - charge to jury - qualified privilege - whether evidence had been adduced to ground a plea of qualified privilege - 'open windows' in context of share dealing - whether verdict was perverse.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now