A New Legal Framework for Judicial Review Factual Disputes: Irish Skydiving Club CLG & Anor v Irish Aviation Authority DAC

1. Introduction

In the judgment of Irish Skydiving Club CLG & Anor v Irish Aviation Authority DAC ([2025] IEHC 77), delivered by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson in the High Court of Ireland, the Court addressed an extensive factual controversy arising during what was initially framed as a judicial review proceeding. This case involves several complex issues, including the scope of the Irish Aviation Authority’s inspection powers, the factual disputes surrounding the manner in which those inspections were conducted, and the potential remedies of certiorari, mandamus, declaratory relief, and damages.

Both the Irish Skydiving Club CLG (the First Named Applicant) and its director/pilot (the Second Named Applicant) challenged the Irish Aviation Authority DAC (the Respondent) following a series of inspections and subsequent restrictions affecting an aircraft and the pilot’s license. The application began as a typical judicial review, but the Court was ultimately called upon to determine whether factual controversies in the vast collection of evidential affidavits would necessitate either cross-examination of deponents or a plenary hearing.

Throughout the proceedings, the Applicants and the Respondent alleged extensive conflicts of fact, each claiming that the other side’s affidavits contained misleading or inaccurate statements. By addressing the unusual degree of factual dispute in a judicial review context, Ms Justice Jackson’s judgment clarifies the legal framework under which courts grant leave for cross-examination or opt for a plenary hearing to resolve factual controversies.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In her judgment, Ms Justice Jackson examined the arguments from both parties relating to the highly contentious nature of the factual record. The key aspects of the decision are:

The Court reaffirmed that judicial review is normally determined on affidavit evidence. However, in situations where factual discrepancies are material and potentially outcome-determinative, the Court has the discretion to allow cross-examination on the affidavits or order a full plenary hearing.
After considering the extensive affidavit evidence – which amounted to ten separate sworn documents excluding those relevant specifically to the motion on the mode of trial – the Court concluded that it would be “inappropriate” to attempt to resolve the case solely through written submissions and affidavits. The factual disputes were simply too extensive and too significant.
The Court decided that cross-examination on the existing affidavits would be the more efficient and proportionate route, rather than converting the matter into a full plenary action from the outset. Given the advanced stage of the proceedings and the substantial effort already invested in preparing affidavits, the Court resolved to maximize the utility of existing materials and confine the hearing through controlled cross-examination.
The Court directed a case management approach to determine if and when the parties could submit any further affidavits, set out timelines for filing, and subsequently arrange cross-examination of the relevant deponents. Through these measures, the Court sought to limit cost escalation and to ensure a just, expeditious resolution.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision references several key precedents that have clarified the powers of a judge to order cross-examination or to convert judicial review proceedings to a plenary hearing:

PCO Manufacturing Ltd v The Irish Medicines Board [2001] IESC 46: The Supreme Court acknowledged that a judge has inherent authority to change the mode of the proceedings if the issues in dispute demand oral testimony.
RAS Medical v Royal College of Surgeons [2019] IESC 4: This Supreme Court decision underscored that parties raising factual disputes in affidavit-based litigation must either resolve them or pursue cross-examination to test the veracity of contested factual averments.
Banik v Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 785: The decision by Humphreys J. stated that while cross-examination in judicial review might be “exceptional,” it is not proscribed if genuine and material factual controversies exist.
Abdelaatti v College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland and others [2024] IEHC 341: This High Court judgment by Simons J. highlighted that cross-examination is permissible wherever significant factual disputes arise in judicial review, and that the court also retains a power under the Rules of the Superior Courts to direct that the matter proceed as a plenary hearing if necessary.

In calling upon these precedents, Ms Justice Jackson placed significant weight on the principle that “exceptionality” in cross-examination arises not because of any rigid rule, but because judicial review often focuses on legal questions rather than contentious factual matters. Nonetheless, when factual discrepancies go to the heart of a case, cross-examination becomes warranted.

B. Legal Reasoning

The legal reasoning in Ms Justice Jackson’s ruling proceeds from a recognition of the Court’s inherent powers under the Rules of the Superior Courts:

Applicability of Order 84, Rule 22 and Rule 24 (RSC): These provisions empower the Court to direct a plenary trial when needed, or to manage the case in a way that allows for a just and expeditious resolution. The judge noted that Order 84 specifically anticipates that not all judicial review matters can be resolved by affidavit alone.
Materiality of Factual Disputes: The Court weighed the arguments of both sides, concluding that the factual disputes are neither marginal nor peripheral. They go to core elements of the inspection powers, interpretations of regulatory definitions, and the validity of the Respondent’s actions in restricting the Applicants’ aircraft and license.
Efficiency and Proportionality: Although the Respondent initially applied for a plenary hearing, the Court found that the existing affidavits should not be rendered moot. Instead, giving the parties the opportunity to test these affidavits via cross-examination was more proportionate, considering the “advanced stage” of the record. Switching entirely to plenary proceedings would risk delay and additional expense.
Case Management Discretion: By imposing timelines for further affidavits and scheduling cross-examination, the Court invoked its discretion to shape proceedings for clarity and efficiency. Oral testimony can now concentrate on issues genuinely in dispute, while the affidavits serve as de facto witness statements, thereby focusing the hearing.

C. Impact

The judgment’s importance extends beyond the specific dispute between the Irish Skydiving Club and the Irish Aviation Authority. It lays out a critical path for similar judicial review cases that involve protracted factual controversies. The Court’s approach indicates:

Greater Clarity: Parties embroiled in factual conflicts can anticipate that courts will be receptive to cross-examination where core, determinative facts remain contested.
Discouraging Delay: In granting cross-examination, the Court seeks to resolve issues more directly, reducing the number of times affidavits are exchanged and preventing stale or prolonged controversies.
Flexibility in Judicial Review: While judicial review is usually dominated by legal arguments, parties must be prepared to present oral testimony if factual allegations significantly diverge and if the outcome depends on resolving those discrepancies.
Cost Considerations: The Court’s balancing of cost and justice reiterates that a step to plenary hearing can be drastic. Cross-examination under the existing judicial review framework may, in many instances, suffice.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal and procedural notions emerge prominently in this judgment. Below are straightforward explanations:

Judicial Review: A form of court proceeding where a judge examines the lawfulness of a decision or action taken by a public body. While it generally involves legal arguments rather than disputes of fact, the Court can make exceptions where factual issues become pivotal.
Plenary Hearing: A full trial akin to standard civil litigation. It typically includes oral evidence, cross-examination, and discovery, as opposed to judicial review’s initial reliance on affidavits and legal submissions.
Cross-Examination: The process by which a party questions a deponent (someone who swore an affidavit) under oath, testing the accuracy and credibility of the statements in the affidavit.
Affidavit Evidence: Written statements sworn under oath and submitted to the court as evidence. In standard judicial review, these statements substitute for oral testimony. In cases of high factual dispute, however, the Court may permit or require the witnesses to testify and be cross-examined.

5. Conclusion

In Irish Skydiving Club CLG & Anor v Irish Aviation Authority DAC, the High Court has underscored the discretionary powers to adapt the proceedings in finding the best path toward uncovering the truth when serious factual controversies appear. Instead of allowing procedural formalities to overshadow the substantive issues, Ms Justice Jackson opted for a balanced approach. By keeping the proceedings under the judicial review heading yet allowing for cross-examinations, the Court aims to ensure a more uniform, just, and cost-effective procedure.

The long-term significance of this judgment lies in its willingness to allow cross-examination in judicial review where factual issues are numerous and material. Practitioners and litigants in future cases can draw guidance from the Court’s analysis regarding the threshold for cross-examination, the importance of clearly identifying disputes of fact, and the continued role of robust case management. This ruling is thus a seminal milestone in the ever-evolving landscape of Irish judicial review, making it clear that the Courts remain vigilant in ensuring both efficiency and fairness when facts, rather than merely law, are in deep contention.