The High Court has refused Ypsilon.net AG’s application to limit Ryanair DAC’s claim against it to services allegedly supplied to online travel agent Vola.ro SRL. It has separately granted Ypsilon leave to amend its defence and bring a competition law counterclaim against Ryanair.
Mr Justice Cregan delivered the judgment on 15 December 2022, after hearing the two applications over two days in October. The proceedings concern Ryanair’s allegations that the defendants used its website and flight data without authorisation, including through screen scraping. Those allegations have not been decided at trial.
Ypsilon asked the court to strike out parts of Ryanair’s amended statement of claim, arguing that its case should be confined to Ypsilon’s alleged role in providing services to Vola. Ryanair maintained that its claim concerned Ypsilon’s alleged use of the website in supplying services to all its customers.
The judge found that the amended pleadings and the material supporting Ypsilon’s joinder to the case made clear that Ryanair’s claim was not limited to services for Vola. Ypsilon had been joined in March 2019, and did not then seek to set aside the joinder order or limit the claim. It later participated in the proceedings, including by filing a defence and taking part in discovery.
The court said Ypsilon’s 2022 application was brought under rules concerning joinder of parties, although Ypsilon did not challenge its joinder. The judge considered the application, in substance, an attempt to narrow the claim years after the joinder order. He refused it, finding that the alleged use of Ryanair’s website in supplying services to Vola and to other customers raised linked issues that should be resolved in the proceedings. He did not determine whether Ypsilon had used the website unlawfully; the judgment says that disputed evidence is for trial.
Ypsilon also argued that EU jurisdiction rules supported restricting the claim. The judge rejected that as a basis for striking out the pleaded claims at this stage. He noted that Article 8(1) appeared difficult to apply on the stated domicile facts, and that Article 8(3) was not relevant because Ryanair had not sued Ypsilon on a counterclaim. He left the Article 8(1) issue for trial.
On the second application, Ypsilon sought permission to amend its defence and plead that Ryanair had abused a dominant position in relevant marketplaces. The proposed counterclaim says that such abuse would preclude Ryanair from maintaining claims arising from the alleged screen scraping activity, even if Ypsilon had been involved—an allegation Ypsilon denies.
The judge granted leave to file the amended defence and counterclaim. He found the proposed competition claim connected to the existing dispute and said it could be managed within the proceedings, which were still at the discovery stage. He directed that further orders could be made to expedite the pleadings. The judgment did not decide whether Ryanair held or abused a dominant position.