Ryanair Ltd -v- Bravofly and Anor [2009] IEHC 41 (29 January 2009)

Ryanair Ltd -v- Bravofly and Anor [2009] IEHC 41 (29 January 2009)

Portions of Bravofly’s pleadings alleging abuse and aggressive behaviour in the flight market are irrelevant to the proceedings and must be redrafted to confine allegations to underlying facts relevant to dominance only. Pleadings on cross subsidisation are struck out as irrelevant. Pleadings on anti-competitive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 41
Parties
Plaintiff: Ryanair Limited; Defendant: Bravofly; Defendant: Travelfusion Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications—strike Out and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application to strike out portions of Bravofly’s defence and counterclaim granted in part; Travelfusion struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Jurisdiction Clauses, Screen Scraping, Pleading Standards, Exclusive Agreements, Cross Subsidisation
Competition Law Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Dominant Position Jurisdiction Clauses Screen Scraping Pleading Standards +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryanair Limited

Plaintiff

Bravofly

Defendant

Travelfusion Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications—strike Out and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of Bravofly’s defence and counterclaim should be struck out under Order 19 Rule 27 RSC
  2. 2 Whether Irish courts have jurisdiction over Travelfusion under the Brussels Regulation given the Ryanair website’s exclusive jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

Portions of Bravofly’s pleadings alleging abuse and aggressive behaviour in the flight market are irrelevant to the proceedings and must be redrafted to confine allegations to underlying facts relevant to dominance only. Pleadings on cross subsidisation are struck out as irrelevant. Pleadings on anti-competitive agreements require further particularisation. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in Ryanair’s website terms is operative, and Irish courts lack jurisdiction over Travelfusion.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out portions of Bravofly’s defence and counterclaim granted in part; Travelfusion struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Bravofly granted opportunity to redraft pleadings on dominance allegations.
  • Cross subsidisation pleadings struck out.