Aer Rianta Cpt v. Ryanair Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff/Respondent operates a number of airports and is empowered by statute to levy passenger service charges. The Defendant/Appellant is an airline that collects those charges from its passengers. In January 2001 the Defendant/Appellant issued a press release and published information on its website stating that the charge was IR£9.50; the Plaintiff/Respondent maintains the correct figure was IR£7.20. Alleging that these statements damaged its business reputation and misled passengers, the Plaintiff/Respondent commenced proceedings in January 2001 seeking declaratory relief, an account, damages for defamation and malicious falsehood, restitution and other remedies.

The Statement of Claim was delivered in March 2002 and the Defence in May 2002. In July 2002 the Defendant/Appellant served a Notice of Trial. In February 2003 it brought a motion under Order 19 rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 to strike out paragraphs 15–17 of the Statement of Claim, which allege unjust enrichment. Judge [Last Name] refused the motion on 29 July 2003. The present appeal challenges that refusal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Order 19 rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 empowers a court to strike out only an entire “pleading” or also discrete paragraphs within a pleading.
2. Consequently, whether paragraphs 15–17 of the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Statement of Claim should be struck out on the ground that they disclose no reasonable cause of action.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant/Appellant's Arguments

• Order 19 rule 28 permits the court to strike out portions of a pleading that disclose no reasonable cause of action.
• Paragraphs 15–17 alleging unjust enrichment are unsustainable because the Plaintiff/Respondent lacks locus standi to pursue restitution for sums collected from passengers, and discovery will not salvage the claim.

Plaintiff/Respondent's Arguments

• Order 19 rule 28 refers only to striking out an entire pleading; striking out isolated paragraphs would exceed the court’s jurisdiction.
• Order 19 rule 27 expressly provides a mechanism for removing “any matter in any pleading,” underscoring that rule 28 is confined to whole documents.
• Creating a “blue-pencil” jurisdiction would spawn costly interlocutory litigation contrary to the objective of expeditious and economical dispute resolution.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court approached the appeal solely under Order 19 rule 28, noting that inherent jurisdiction was neither argued nor relevant. The analysis began with the rule’s text:

• The rule states that “the court may order any pleading to be struck out.” The absence of language referring to “part” of a pleading is decisive.
• Order 125 rule 1 defines “pleading” as a distinct document—such as a statement of claim, defence or reply—supporting the interpretation that rule 28 addresses complete documents.
• A contrast with Order 19 rule 27, which expressly allows deletion of “any matter in any pleading,” reinforces that rule 28 was not intended to reach portions of a document.
• The remainder of rule 28 empowers the court, upon striking out a pleading, to stay or dismiss “the action” or enter judgment, consequences logically tied to eliminating an entire pleading rather than excising selected paragraphs.
• Even if the Defendant/Appellant succeeded, the relief contemplated by rule 28—dismissal or stay of the action—would not be available, confirming the procedural misfit.
• Policy considerations also militated against recognising a piecemeal jurisdiction: a “blue-pencil” approach would encourage interlocutory skirmishes, delay trials, and inflate costs.

On these grounds the court held that it lacks jurisdiction under Order 19 rule 28 to strike out part of a pleading. Because jurisdiction was absent, the merits of the unjust-enrichment allegation did not arise for determination.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed; the High Court order refusing to strike out paragraphs 15–17 is affirmed.

Direct Effect: The Plaintiff/Respondent’s claim, including the unjust-enrichment paragraphs, proceeds to trial.

Broader Implications: The decision clarifies that Order 19 rule 28 is confined to striking out entire pleadings and cannot be invoked to excise individual paragraphs, thereby discouraging fragmentary interlocutory motions and promoting efficiency in litigation. No new precedent beyond the construction of the rule was established.