Ryanair DAC v SC Vola.RO SRL & Anor (Approved) [2020] IEHC 308 (22 June 2020)

Ryanair DAC v SC Vola.RO SRL & Anor (Approved) [2020] IEHC 308 (22 June 2020)

Vola's counterclaim fails to plead with sufficient particularity the material facts necessary to ground a sustainable claim for abuse of dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. The particulars furnished do not adequately define relevant economic markets, Ryanair's dominance, or anti-competitive effects. The claim is hypothetical, contingent on future conduct, and does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The counterclaim is bound to fail and constitutes an abuse of process.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 308
Parties
Plaintiff: Ryanair DAC; First Defendant: SC Vola. RO SRL; Second Defendant: Ypsilon. NET AG
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Counterclaim
Outcome
Counterclaim struck out
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Screen Scraping, Market Definition, Pleading Standards, Injunctions
Competition Law Contract Law Intellectual Property Abuse of Dominant Position Screen Scraping Market Definition Pleading Standards Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryanair DAC

Plaintiff

SC Vola. RO SRL

First Defendant

Ypsilon. NET AG

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Vola's counterclaim discloses a reasonable cause of action for abuse of dominant position under Article 102 TFEU
  2. 2 Whether particulars furnished by Vola are sufficient to ground a competition law claim
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim should be struck out as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Vola's counterclaim fails to plead with sufficient particularity the material facts necessary to ground a sustainable claim for abuse of dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. The particulars furnished do not adequately define relevant economic markets, Ryanair's dominance, or anti-competitive effects. The claim is hypothetical, contingent on future conduct, and does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The counterclaim is bound to fail and constitutes an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim struck out

Orders

  • First defendant's counterclaim is struck out pursuant to O.19, r.27 and r.28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  • No order as to modular trial or stay, as counterclaim is struck out