The High Court rejected Ryanair’s application to have Mr Justice Kelly removed from its commercial dispute with Terravision London Finance Limited, finding that the company had not established objective bias. He nevertheless said a colleague should take over the litigation to avoid further delay and protect the defendant’s right to have the case heard speedily.
Ryanair began the action in January 2010, seeking €1,809,758.16. Its claim later increased to €8,407,614.71, less £986,849.90. The underlying dispute concerns an alleged marketing contract for Terravision’s coach services. Ryanair says it agreed to promote those services at certain airports, on its flights and on its website. The judgment records that Terravision’s anticipated defences included that Ryanair had sued the wrong party and disputed Ryanair’s interpretation of the contract. Those claims and defences had not been decided in this judgment.
The recusal motion followed a June 2010 judgment in separate judicial review proceedings, where Kelly had criticised admitted untruths by Ryanair concerning the court and a Government Minister. Ryanair did not claim actual bias in this application. It argued that the judge’s reference to Ryanair, rather than specifically to its chief executive, could create a reasonable apprehension that evidence from Ryanair employees would not receive an impartial assessment.
Kelly applied the objective test: whether a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would apprehend a risk that the judge would not be impartial. He concluded that such an observer would read the earlier comment in its factual context and would not interpret it as condemning all Ryanair employees. He also gave little weight to other complaints raised in affidavits, including objections about exchanges during earlier hearings. He ruled that objective bias had not been established.
Despite rejecting the recusal application on its merits, Kelly decided that a colleague should handle the case. He said this was solely to prevent further delay, noting that Ryanair might appeal and that this could postpone the hearing substantially. He also pointed to Terravision’s interest in having its pending motion to strike out the statement of claim, and the underlying action, adjudicated speedily. The judgment does not decide that motion or the commercial dispute.