The High Court has refused Ryanair leave to seek judicial review of a determination setting maximum charges at Dublin Airport for 2010 to 2014. The application was dismissed because the court considered the statutory appeal process an adequate and more suitable way to address Ryanair’s complaints.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Kelly on 4 June 2010, concerned a determination made by the Commission for Aviation Regulation (CAR) on 4 December 2009. Dublin Airport Authority Public Limited Company (DAA), which operates the airport, was a notice party.
Ryanair had sought permission to challenge the determination and principally to have it quashed. It argued that CAR had acted unlawfully in setting charges. A letter to the Minister for Transport listed complaints including inadequate consultation, the treatment of Terminal 2 costs and the regulator’s accounting and pricing methods. Those were Ryanair’s allegations, not findings made by the court.
The company had also requested a statutory appeal panel. In evidence supporting its request to adjourn the judicial review, Ryanair described the panel as a “cost efficient, quick and satisfactory forum” for addressing its grievance, and said it was its preferred route. Ryanair later withdrew that adjournment application, but the affidavit remained before the court.
Justice Kelly concluded that Ryanair’s own evidence showed the appeal mechanism could fully address its complaints. He said it would be inappropriate to exercise the court’s discretion to allow judicial review in those circumstances. He added that even if substantial grounds for challenging the determination had been established—which he said he was not satisfied they had—the court would still refuse leave as a matter of discretion.
The court therefore refused leave to apply for judicial review and dismissed the application. It did not quash or uphold the charges determination on its merits. The judge said it was unnecessary to decide whether Ryanair’s conduct independently justified refusing leave, but recorded that inaccurate statements in affidavits had materially misled the court and criticised other statements concerning the Minister and the court.