The High Court has refused to adjourn ER Travel Limited's competition proceedings against Dublin Airport Authority after the plaintiff's principal economist unexpectedly became unavailable to give oral evidence.
In an interim judgment delivered on 19 March 2026, Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the interests of justice favoured continuing the trial using the expert materials already before the court rather than allowing ER Travel to instruct a replacement economist.
ER Travel argued that the loss of its principal competition expert caused real prejudice because it bears the burden of proving its case and would be unable to have the economist explain and defend his analysis in oral evidence. It sought an adjournment to retain a replacement expert, potentially from outside Ireland.
DAA opposed that course. It pointed to the age and advanced stage of proceedings which had already been ongoing for almost seven years, and warned that a new economist could adopt a different approach to issues such as market definition or the alleged abuse. That could potentially lead to amended pleadings, further discovery, additional expert evidence or the recall of factual witnesses.
DAA instead offered to waive cross-examination of ER Travel's unavailable expert and asked the court to proceed on the existing written reports and joint expert statement.
Mr Justice Barrett accepted that the expert's unavailability was entirely outside ER Travel's control, but identified five factors favouring continuation: the age and stage of the litigation, possible disruption from introducing a new economist, the existing expert material, DAA's waiver of cross-examination and the need to avoid further delay and expense.
The court concluded that the prejudice to ER Travel did not outweigh those considerations. The trial will therefore continue on the existing expert record rather than being adjourned for a replacement economist.