The High Court has ordered Bravofly to revise parts of its competition counterclaim against Ryanair, struck out its cross-subsidisation pleadings and dismissed Ryanair’s claim against Travelfusion for want of jurisdiction.
In a judgment delivered on 29 January 2009, Mr Justice Clarke addressed two applications in proceedings about automated extraction of flight information from Ryanair’s website. Ryanair alleges that the activity, known as screen scraping, breached its website terms, infringed intellectual property rights and amounted to conversion and trespass. Bravofly denies those claims and alleges that Ryanair abused a dominant position in breach of European and Irish competition law. The judgment did not decide those underlying claims.
On Ryanair’s application to strike out parts of Bravofly’s amended defence and counterclaim, the judge said Bravofly could rely on underlying facts about Ryanair’s economic power in the flight market, insofar as they might help establish dominance relevant to the online booking market. But he said allegations that Ryanair abused or aggressively exercised a dominant position in the flight market were not relevant to this case. He gave Bravofly an opportunity to redraft that section to focus on relevant underlying facts.
The judge struck out the pleaded allegation that Ryanair cross-subsidised flight operations using profits from online booking services. He said it was not shown to be relevant to establishing dominance or abuse in the online booking market. He also gave Bravofly an opportunity to add significant detail to its claim that Ryanair had entered anti-competitive agreements with third parties, including how the alleged contract was said to restrict competition and what relief was sought. He did not strike out pleadings describing the online travel agency market and its services, finding they could remain in a grey area between facts and evidence.
Travelfusion, an England-based company named as a provider of technical services to Bravofly, sought dismissal of the proceedings against it under the Brussels Regulation. It relied on the Ryanair website terms, which specify exclusive jurisdiction for English courts. Ryanair argued that Travelfusion could not rely on the clause while denying that a contract existed between them.
The judge held that Travelfusion could rely on the jurisdiction clause for the jurisdiction issue while disputing any underlying contract. He ruled that the clause applied and that Irish courts had no jurisdiction over the claim against Travelfusion. That claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction; the judgment did not determine the substantive claims against Bravofly.