The Supreme Court has overturned a £433,740 summary judgment obtained by Aer Rianta against Ryanair over airport charges on routes between Dublin and Paris and Brussels.
Mr Justice Hardiman held that the dispute contained substantial factual conflicts which required a full trial. He set aside the High Court order and remitted the action for what lawyers call a plenary hearing, where witnesses can give oral evidence and be cross-examined.
Aer Rianta began the proceedings in July 1999, claiming landing charges and passenger load fees. In December 2000, the High Court granted it final judgment for £356,777 plus £76,963 interest.
Ryanair disputed how Aer Rianta’s discount scheme applied to traffic on the Paris and Brussels routes. It claimed the scheme had been varied during discussions between Ryanair chief executive Mr O’Leary and an Aer Rianta representative, Mr Byrne. Alternatively, Ryanair argued that those discussions prevented Aer Rianta from insisting on the original terms.
Aer Rianta strongly denied that the alleged negotiations or assurances had occurred. It argued that Ryanair’s account was commercially implausible and inconsistent with contemporary documents.
The Supreme Court said summary judgment is intended for cases where there is no genuine issue requiring trial, or where the issues are simple and easily determined. A defendant does not have to show that its defence will probably succeed. It is enough that there is an arguable, genuine defence which cannot properly be rejected without a trial.
Mr Justice Hardiman found a stark factual conflict between the parties. Their competing accounts depended on complex commercial dealings, disputed background facts and extensive affidavit evidence.
He also noted that part of Ryanair’s February 1997 documentation appeared capable of supporting its contention that some variation of the discount arrangement had occurred.
The ruling did not decide whether Ryanair ultimately owed the disputed charges. It decided only that Aer Rianta was not entitled to final judgment without a full trial of the contested evidence.