The High Court has ruled on competing discovery applications in Ryanair’s case against Skyscanner, ordering both sides to produce documents across a range of issues. The judgment does not decide whether Skyscanner accessed Ryanair data unlawfully or whether Ryanair abused a dominant position.
Ryanair alleges that Skyscanner used automated software to obtain price, flight and timetable data from Ryanair’s website and display it on Skyscanner’s platforms. It seeks damages and other relief for alleged contract, intellectual property and other wrongs. Skyscanner denies the alleged conduct and counterclaims that Ryanair’s actions breach Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Those remain disputed claims.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey’s 5 June 2025 judgment addressed discovery only: what documents each party must disclose for the litigation. The two motions took four hearing days. The judge’s rulings followed negotiations that narrowed the parties’ disagreements, and he directed them to prepare a draft order reflecting the decisions.
Among other matters, Skyscanner must disclose documents showing how it obtained Ryanair data between 1 October and 5 December 2019, including relevant software source code, third-party contracts and communications about Ryanair’s terms of use. The court also ordered discovery concerning searches, bookings, revenues, market position and Skyscanner’s competition allegations, subject to the limits and time periods set out in the judgment.
Ryanair must disclose specified material relevant to Skyscanner’s counterclaim, including monthly market-share information from 2015, certain competition analyses and documents about Ryanair’s strategy and the effects of online travel and comparison services. It must also provide documents concerning its licence arrangements, the operation and ownership of elements of its website, and certain customer complaints and communications with regulators.
The judge refused or narrowed other requests. He found some proposed categories too broad, speculative, disproportionate or insufficiently connected to the pleaded issues. For example, he declined to order a broad search of Skyscanner’s use of the Ryanair name, and refused certain requests for pricing and investment material. He also limited requests concerning Ryanair’s anti-screen-scraping mechanisms, concluding that the detailed documentation sought could be excessive and potentially prejudice Ryanair.
The judgment did not resolve the underlying claims or counterclaim. The court said the parties could not use the draft-order process to re-argue the categories already decided. It listed the matter for mention on 17 July 2025 to check that the draft orders had been agreed and to address any ancillary issue, including costs, if necessary.