Ryanair apologises to man who was 'wrongly banned' from flying with the airline

Ryanair has "sincerely and unreservedly apologised" to a quantity surveyor who claimed that he had been wrongly banned from flying with the airline.  

Eoin Michael Cahill sued the airline which he said had defamed him after it wrongly accused him of engaging in disruptive behaviour on a date earlier this year.

At the High Court this Tuesday, the plaintiff said he neither travelled on a Ryanair flight nor was he present at Dublin Airport on the date in question. He also claimed that he had been defamed by Ryanair after it wrote to his employer informing it of the ban. 

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy was informed that Ryanair wished to apologise to Mr Cahill and that the flight ban that was "incorrectly imposed" on him "has been withdrawn."  

The airline said that Mr Cahill had been "mistakenly identified" as a disruptive passenger alleged to have been involved in an altercation with the airline's staff, which required the assistance of Airport Police, on January 2, last. 

Represented by Martin Hayden SC, Ryanair said it accepts that Mr Cahill was not this passenger, has offered to make amends to him and to correct the record with his employer.

It has offered to write a letter stating that the (original) message it sent to Mr Cahill's employers was inaccurate and that all the allegations it made against the plaintiff were "fully withdrawn." 

It has also offered to pay Mr Cahill €10,000 in compensation plus his legal costs, as may be agreed. 

In his action Mr Cahill said he is employed by the Jones Engineering Group, and is currently working on a project in Copenhagen, Denmark and that the flights he takes between Denmark and Ireland are purchased by his employer.  

The court heard he was due to fly with Ryanair from Dublin to Copenhagen on January 2, but after extending his leave did not travel on that date. 

The following day (January 3) he claims he was defamed in an email sent to his employer by Ryanair's customer services. 

The email, he claimed, contained a false and untenable allegation that he was "disruptive" on his journey through Dublin Airport and that he was prohibited from flying with Ryanair again.  

He claimed that what had happened to him would have disastrous implications on his professional reputation, especially as has to travel to Denmark as part of his job. 

Represented by Paul O'Higgins SC, instructed by solicitor CW Ashe and Company, Mr Cahill brought proceedings seeking an injunction requiring Ryanair to correct the record with his employer, and to lift the travel ban placed on him. 

In his proceedings against both Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings PLC, Mr Cahill, with an address at Carrigban, Killarney Road, Macroom, Co. Cork also sought damages, including aggravated damages for the alleged defamation.  

In correspondence with Mr Cahill, the airline also said that it had asked for time to complete an investigation into the allegations before seeking an injunction. 

It claimed that Mr Cahill had not given the airline ample time to fully investigate the matter, and disputed the plaintiff's claims that the matter was urgent. 

While it accepted Mr Cahill's annoyance and upset, the airline said that it takes the issue of disruptive passengers very seriously given the impact such incidents have on passengers and staff, 

Mr Cahill's lawyers rejected Ryanair's arguments and said that the airline has had ample time to address his complaints, but had failed to do so. 

Ryanair, they submitted, had known about his complaints about the ban and the message to his employer since early January, and had not addressed his concerns.

After hearing arguments from both sides Mr Justice Mulcahy agreed that the airline had known about Mr Cahill's complaint for some time before it completed its investigation and said that the plaintiff was entitled to his legal costs of the injunction proceedings against the defendants.