The Supreme Court varied a High Court discovery decision in Ryanair’s competition case against Aer Rianta, allowing the appeal only to the extent of changes set out by Mr Justice McCracken. The ruling addressed what documents Aer Rianta must disclose; it did not decide the underlying competition allegations.
Ryanair claimed Aer Rianta gave preferential treatment to Aer Lingus and engaged in other abuses of a dominant position. Aer Rianta denied some allegations. In considering the discovery requests, the court said document categories must be precise in light of the case and what the requesting party could reasonably know about documents that might exist. A request may be narrowed to exclude material that is irrelevant or privileged.
The court rejected Aer Rianta’s general objection that Ryanair’s request of 14 March 2001 failed to identify document categories adequately or explain why they were sought. It said the request met the general requirement. It then considered the categories individually.
Discovery was allowed, with limits, for records of monthly passenger numbers checked in by Aer Lingus for its own flights and other airlines during 1998 and to 27 September 1999. Documents about check-in desks and baggage belts were confined to their number, terms and conditions, and related negotiations. The court also allowed documents about plans for contractual works at Dublin Airport, including reasons for decisions and negotiations with third parties, and documents about the introduction and increase of the Dublin fuel levy, limited to negotiations affecting that levy.
Some requests were refused or narrowed. Discovery was not ordered for new factual allegations raised in a December 2000 letter because they amounted to new causes of action that had not been pleaded. The judgment said Ryanair could seek discovery on those matters if the statement of claim were later amended to put them in issue. Requests concerning a proposed Cork Airport levy in 2000 and two sub-categories of a facilities request were also excluded. A request for construction-cost “details” was refused because it sought information rather than discovery of documents.
The court allowed discovery on several other disputed subjects, including the common user check-in system, handling agents’ access to Shannon Airport, Ryanair’s parking spaces at Shannon, access to Pier A, Aer Rianta’s airline travel business policy, and vehicle clamping allegations. It narrowed the VIP facilities request to documents about withdrawal of facilities from Ryanair employee Conor McCarthy, and excluded flight, price and usage details from one request about airline travel business. The appeal was allowed to the extent of these variations.