The High Court has allowed Ryanair to amend its pleadings in a dispute over Ireland’s air travel tax, including proposed claims about retroactive taxation and the airline’s pricing model. It also made an unopposed order concerning the change of the company’s name to Ryanair DAC.
In a judgment delivered on 22 January 2019, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the defendants had not shown real, actual prejudice that justified refusing the amendments. The decision concerns permission to amend the pleadings; it does not determine the underlying tax or constitutional claims.
Ryanair’s proposed amendment says that, under EU state aid rules, it could ultimately be required to pay the State €8 for each passenger to whom the €2 air travel tax rate applied, although no such liability existed when those passengers travelled. Ryanair seeks to argue that this amounted to retroactive interference with its constitutional property rights. The defendants did not contend that the argument was bound to fail; they opposed it on grounds of logistical prejudice.
The judgment says the factual basis for the proposed claims was already in issue between the parties. It also notes that the extent to which Ryanair could pass tax costs on to passengers was already relevant to its restitution and damages claims. Ryanair’s economists had said they could analyse the amendments without new data or discovery beyond what their existing work required.
The defendants also opposed proposed pleading about Ryanair’s “load factor active, yield passive” business model, which the airline says involves offering discount fares to fill aircraft, with extracting profit from each passenger a secondary concern. The State argued that the amendment could require fresh discovery and delay the trial, then expected in October 2019 alongside Aer Lingus restitution proceedings.
Justice Barrett described the State’s evidence of additional discovery and delay as tentative. He said any risk could be addressed through strict timetabling, with the court available to make an order if the parties could not agree one. The court considered the amendments on their own merits and found the logistical prejudice advanced did not provide a sound basis to refuse them.