The High Court has made no order on Ryanair DAC’s application over answers given by SC Vola.ro SRL to questions about Vola’s competition-law counterclaim. Mr Justice Mark Sanfey held that the answers were adequate in outline and that further particulars were not required at this stage.
The application followed a June 2020 judgment in which the court declined to strike out Vola’s counterclaim but required it to give “substantial and meaningful” answers to five questions about the downstream market it said Ryanair’s conduct affected. Those questions concerned Vola’s competitors, market shares, the effects on other online travel agents and consumers, and the claimed impact if Ryanair prevented online travel agents from selling its tickets.
Ryanair later sought to strike out the counterclaim or, alternatively, obtain further relief because it considered Vola’s answers inadequate. At the March 2021 hearing, however, Ryanair’s counsel said the company was not pressing its request to strike out the counterclaim at that point. The live issue was whether the answers to the five questions were adequate and, if not, what action should follow.
Vola’s answers identified Esky, fly-go.ro and veltravel.ro as other online travel agents. It said Vola held 10 per cent of the overall Romanian market it described, including airline websites, and 60 per cent of the online travel agent segment. Vola also contended that consumers could lose the convenience of comparing fares and arranging journeys involving more than one airline if they could not buy Ryanair tickets through its website. These were Vola’s claims, not findings on the merits of the counterclaim.
Justice Sanfey concluded that the first four questions had been answered adequately and that any confusion about the market description or the 10 and 60 per cent figures had been clarified. He said Ryanair could seek further information through discovery, interrogatories or a notice to admit facts.
On the fifth question, the judge summarised Vola’s position as a claim that consumers might stop using its site if they could not buy Ryanair tickets there, potentially losing access to comparison and itinerary services. He noted Ryanair considered that argument unsustainable, but said the application concerned whether Ryanair had enough detail to understand the case in general, not whether Vola would prove it at trial. The judgment did not decide the competition counterclaim or the underlying Ryanair claim.
The judge’s provisional view was that the costs of the application should be costs in the cause. Either party could make a short written submission seeking a different costs order, after which the court would give its final decision on costs.