The Supreme Court has allowed Ryanair Limited to submit a supplemental witness statement in its ongoing case against Bravofly Limited, overturning a High Court ruling that had excluded it. The appeal concerned the statement’s delivery outside a Commercial Court deadline, not the underlying allegations about Ryanair’s website or the parties’ broader dispute.
Ryanair alleges that between June and December 2007 Bravofly used automated “screen scraping” to extract flight information from Ryanair’s website and offer Ryanair flights for sale on its own site. Bravofly disputes liability, says customers undertake the complained-of acts, and argues that Ryanair knew of and consented to its services. Bravofly also counterclaims under competition law. Those claims were not decided in this appeal.
The dispute arose after Ryanair delivered a supplemental précis of evidence from software engineer Christopher Dickson in July 2010, several months after its original witness statements. Bravofly objected, arguing the statement was late and contained hearsay. At trial in October 2010, the High Court excluded it because Ryanair had not explained the delay or sought Bravofly’s consent or the court’s permission to extend the deadline. The trial was then deferred pending the appeal.
The Supreme Court first addressed whether it should hear an appeal during an ongoing trial. It said the usual course is for a trial to continue to final order before appeals are brought against rulings made during the hearing. It nevertheless heard this appeal because of the exceptional passage of time: the trial had stopped after its second day in 2010, and sending the matter back would likely prolong the litigation for years.
On the evidence issue, the Court held that the trial judge had erred by refusing to permit the statement to be furnished. It considered the material relevant to a key issue, submitted nearly three months before trial, and found no identified prejudice to Bravofly’s ability to prepare. The Court also noted that the Commercial Court could address the default through conditions or costs.
The ruling does not establish that the statement is admissible evidence or prove Ryanair’s allegations. Bravofly remains entitled to challenge its admission or use, including on hearsay grounds. The High Court may make updated case-management orders, including allowing Bravofly to file a response. Ryanair must pay costs that would be wasted because the case has to begin afresh; the Court said the same conclusion applies to a supplemental statement from Eric Neville if it remains in dispute.