Rosanna Davison awarded €80,000 in damages

If I was (organising) it, I would have made sure that Irish women were involved because it’s an Irish charity and Irish fundraising. Any person from any part of Europe would say that Irish women are gorgeous”.

msthe80s wrote: »

Does anyone know which charity the Ryanair calendar was originally supporting?

“Ryanair confirmed it had received applications from charities throughout Europe and Dublin’s Simon Community was chosen.

“Ryanair’s Stephen McNamara said: “There is nothing more unattractive than jealousy. We cannot believe that Ireland’s former Miss World would engage in such narrow minded remarks about a calendar which will raise money for charity. We conducted a fair and unbiased selection process for our calendar participants and for our charity partner which was based on the strongest applications received.

“Ryanair does not participate in tokenism. While we originally selected an Irish girl it was because she deserved to be included not simply as a token gesture. To replace that girl with another applicant on the basis of her being Irish would have been unfair to all the girls who applied to participate. The strongest candidates were selected irrespective of race. This narrow minded attitude is disgraceful.

“Ryanair is an international airline and all the staff members involved in this calendar irrespective of where they came from are delighted to help this year’s charity. We hope that next year we will receive more applications from our gorgeous

Irish cabin crew. However, we will never place any staff members ahead of others simply because they are Irish.”

In evidence, Ms Davison said she won Miss Ireland in August 2003 and went on to win Miss World that December. She travelled to many countries and did a lot of charity work in her year as Miss Ireland and Miss World and since.

In 2006, she completed an honours degree in Sociology and History of Art in UCD and later did a diploma in PR and Event Management. She works as a model and a columnist for the Evening Herald.

She said she made her remarks concerning the Ryanair calendar after being phoned by a journalist, Stephen O’Farrell, whom she did not know. She was regularly phoned by journalists for quotes.

She said the journalist told her the Ryanair calendar had just been published, there were no Irish women in it and asked, as an Irish model, what she though of it. He also asked what she thought about Irish women as there had been some remarks about them.

When she answered his questions, she did not know much about Ryanair, having flown with it just twice, or about the selection process for the calendar.

The next day, she was contacted by a journalist about the Ryanair news release and was absolutely shocked and upset when she saw the words used in the release, particularly racist. She did not believe the calendar should be limited to one nationality.

Of all people to call racist and elitist, she was not such a person as she worked with and for people of all nationalities. Her family was also upset.

Her solicitor Paul Tweed wrote to Ryanair looking for an apology and donation to charity. She felt Ryanair’s response in its replies to her solicitor’s “reasonable” letters was aggressive. References by Ryanair in its letters describing her comments as “stupid” and “ill-considered” were “incredibly juvenile”, “downright rude” and “schoolyard talk”, she said.

The jury heard Ryanair had in one letter stated it had been contacted by Chris de Burgh, father of Ms Davison, about the news release and had said it would not be bullied by Mr De Burgh.

In cross-examination, Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, said Ms Davison’s solicitor had initially written seeking a substantial donation to charity.

Ms Davison agreed she knew little about Ryanair when she made her remarks to Mr O’Farrell, whom she had never spoken to before. Flights were often organised for her and these were with Aer Lingus.

She agreed she had considerable dealings with media. She also agreed a charity calendar is a great idea and said she had participated in a charity calendar, Angels for Moldova.

She felt her comments concerning the calendar were “considered” and “very measured”, she was expressing her opinion when she said she would have ensured Irish girls were involved, and did not mean to insult anyone.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

ryanair claimed her comments regarding the flight crews were 'borderline racism',

to me that means close but not quite there, so how did she win this case?

vonnie10 wrote: »

Its absolute BS !!! Seriously so much stuff going on and we're hearing about this nonsense, just wish they would all feck off !! Its the same with the giggs superinjunction scandal !!! Why are we giving these numpties column inches ?? Are there people out there that actually care???

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Well if someone here said you were "borderline "insert any insulting personal remark" would you see it as an insult or would you and the mods go "a well... borderline... it's not like it was an actual insult"


I think she was dead right to sue. They splashed it all over the world via their website

I can't see anything wrong with her comments regarding the calender, it was just a personal opinion and was hardly slating ryanair either? I will be happily educated other wise.

ejmaztec wrote: »

Ryanair could always appeal against the decision, presumably?

“We note that the jury were split and now we will be looking for an appeal on the damages because we feel we should have been able to bring forward the argument of fair comment and qualified privilege,” he said.

“I still stand by the right for us to defend the calendar so in terms of that I don’t think any apology was required.”

He revealed the airline was turning its attention to its 2012 calendar, which he said he hoped will be widely supported.

“Rosanna herself can apply,” joked Mr McNamara.

“If she wants to apply we’ll consider her. But the best girls will always get in.”

However later this evening Ryanair issued a statement saying they were "very happy" with the outcome and no appeal would take place.

"Having considered the matter further and in light of the fact that the jury award of €40,000 for damages to her reputation is less than the cost of an appeal to the Supreme Court we have decided not to bother appealing as we are very happy with this outcome," the company said.