The High Court has directed Bravofly Limited to delete parts of its defence and counterclaim that made positive assertions about how Travelfusion Ltd’s system operated in a dispute brought by Ryanair Limited. The order followed Bravofly’s stated expectation that it was unlikely ever to obtain the technical information needed to answer questions about that system.
The dispute concerns Ryanair’s claims that Bravofly’s operation infringed its intellectual property and similar rights. A central issue is how Bravofly, Travelfusion and Ryanair systems interacted when customers searched for Ryanair flights and could choose to book them through Bravofly’s website. The court did not decide whether infringement had occurred.
Ryanair had renewed an application to strike out parts of Bravofly’s defence and counterclaim after receiving further particulars and an affidavit from Bravofly director Marco Coradino. The court found that Bravofly had not adequately explained how its own systems interacted with Travelfusion’s. It also found that replies to requests 15 and 16 did not answer the questions asked, with no basis shown for Bravofly being unable to provide those answers.
On the technical operation of Travelfusion’s system, the court distinguished between requiring Ryanair to prove its case and allowing Bravofly to advance its own positive case about how the systems should be characterised. Ryanair retains the burden of proving its claims on the balance of probabilities. Bravofly may argue that Ryanair has not met that burden, but cannot currently rely on positive assertions about Travelfusion’s technical operation when it cannot provide particulars or anticipates being unable to present evidence about it.
The court gave Bravofly one final three-week opportunity to provide particulars about its own system’s interaction with Travelfusion and to answer requests 15 and 16. The court said there would be no further extension and that failure to respond adequately would be treated as breach of an “unless” order. It directed that the relevant positive pleas concerning Travelfusion be struck out, while allowing Bravofly to apply to reinstate them if relevant evidence later became available. Any reinstatement would require an application to amend the proceedings and could be refused or made subject to terms, including costs.
The parties were invited to agree the wording of the deletions. If they could not agree, the dispute, along with any alleged failure to provide the further particulars, was to be listed for mention on 6 October. The judgment did not determine the underlying infringement claims or finally resolve the litigation.