The High Court has dismissed On the Beach Limited’s application to set aside the proceedings Ryanair Limited brought against it, finding that the Irish courts have jurisdiction under a clause in Ryanair’s website terms of use.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 22 March 2013, concerned jurisdiction only. Ryanair’s claims—including alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation, passing off and intellectual property infringements—remain unresolved. The judge did not determine whether the companies had a contractual relationship or whether On the Beach was liable for any alleged wrong.
On the Beach, a UK company, entered a conditional appearance to contest jurisdiction. It argued that it acted as an agent for consumers booking flights and did not itself agree to Ryanair’s terms. Its evidence said third-party suppliers provided flight data, and that On the Beach began screen-scraping at the booking stage from 1 February 2012. Ryanair argued that On the Beach used its website and was bound by the terms, which included submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Irish courts.
The court accepted that the dispute arose in international trade or commerce and found evidence of a regular practice in the airline and online travel sectors of binding website users through click or browse terms. It concluded that On the Beach knew, or should have known, of that practice. By continuing to use Ryanair’s website through automated or manual processes, or through a data provider, On the Beach was bound by the jurisdiction clause under Article 23(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation.
The judge said it did not matter for this jurisdiction question whether On the Beach accessed the site as an agent or principal. That issue, and any resulting liability, belonged to the substantive proceedings.
Ryanair’s other jurisdiction arguments did not succeed. The court found that it had not shown the written agreement required by Article 23(1)(a), had not established a place of performance in Ireland for Article 5(1), and had not demonstrated that the harmful events alleged in tort occurred in Ireland for Article 5(3). The application was dismissed because the Article 23(1)(c) ground established jurisdiction.