The High Court has stayed the operation of a passenger seat cap for Dublin Airport’s Summer 2025 season while three judicial review cases proceed. The order applies only to the cap in the Irish Aviation Authority’s (IAA) coordination decision; it does not suspend the rest of that decision or the airport’s planning conditions.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell delivered the ruling on 4 November 2024 after hearing the stay applications on 1 November. The airlines are challenging the IAA’s 10 October decision setting summer coordination parameters, including a Passenger Air Traffic Movement (PATM) cap. The judgment describes the cap as 25.2 million passengers in its background and discussion, but its concluding paragraph states 25.5 million. The final order’s wording had not yet been settled: the judge invited the parties to agree its form.
The applicants are Aer Lingus, Ryanair and four airlines represented in proceedings by Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (trading as Airlines for America). They contend, among other things, that the IAA was not entitled to treat planning conditions limiting the combined annual capacity of Terminals 1 and 2 to 32 million passengers as a relevant constraint when setting slots. They also argue that the cap could interfere with their historic slot entitlements. These claims remain contested and were not decided in the stay ruling.
The airlines’ evidence projected financial, operational and other losses if the cap took effect. The judge said there was no real dispute, for the purposes of the applications, that they faced serious and potentially irreparable harm, and a strong argument that damages would not provide an adequate remedy. The IAA took a neutral position on the stays and said the remaining coordination parameters could still be implemented if the cap were suspended. Airport Coordination Limited, which allocates slots, also took a neutral position.
Dublin Airport operator daa plc opposed the applications, arguing that suspending the cap could result in breach of the planning conditions. The judge accepted that the conditions remained valid and had not been challenged. But he concluded that the stay would not suspend them or prevent planning authorities from taking action. He found that the risk of serious injustice to the airlines outweighed the asserted public interest in planning compliance in these circumstances.
The stay applies until the judicial reviews are determined or the court makes a further order. The cases were scheduled for a full hearing in December 2024. Costs of the stay applications were reserved for consideration with the overall costs of the proceedings.