The High Court has refused Ryanair Limited’s application for interlocutory injunctions that would have restrained Club Travel Limited from selling packages including Ryanair flights and from using information from Ryanair’s website. The ruling leaves the parties’ underlying dispute for a full hearing; it does not determine whether Club Travel breached Ryanair’s terms or rights.
Ryanair, which sells flights through its call centre and website, claimed an exclusive distribution system for its flights. It alleged that Club Travel, an internet travel agent, used automated “screen scraping” to extract flight information for its own website and sold Ryanair flights as part of package holidays. Ryanair also raised claims including breach of contract, infringement of database rights, passing off and unlawful interference with economic or contractual interests. Club Travel denied the allegations and argued that consumers used its search and booking engine and contracted directly with Ryanair.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern said Ryanair had established a bona fide question to be tried on many of its claims, but not on passing off. He stressed that an interlocutory hearing was not the stage to resolve conflicts of affidavit evidence or decide the parties’ underlying rights.
On whether damages would be adequate, Ryanair argued that its alleged losses included potential privacy-related claims, exposure to claims over flight cancellations, and harm to advertising and goodwill. The judge noted that Ryanair had provided no specific examples of claims or actual losses caused by Club Travel’s activity. On the information before him, he considered damages an adequate remedy.
The court also considered the balance of convenience. Club Travel had operated in the complained-of manner since 2010, and the judge found credible its evidence that an injunction would cause significant loss and damage. He said the parties’ factual disputes could not appropriately be resolved at this stage and that stopping the established business pending trial could cause hardship if Club Travel ultimately succeeded.
The court therefore refused to make any interlocutory order. The decision concerns interim relief only; the claims remain for determination at a full hearing.