The High Court has given Bravofly additional time to provide detailed technical information about how its online flight-search and booking system operated in its Commercial Court dispute with Ryanair.
Mr Justice Clarke found that Bravofly had not complied with an earlier order requiring particulars of the technology used to search for and facilitate bookings of Ryanair flights. Ryanair had sought to have parts of Bravofly’s defence and counterclaim struck out as a result.
The underlying case concerns Ryanair’s allegation that Bravofly wrongfully accessed its website. Ryanair claims this amounted, among other things, to breach of contract, copyright infringement and infringement of database rights. Bravofly denies those claims and maintains that its system operated in a way that did not amount to access by Bravofly itself.
The court had previously ordered Bravofly to explain the technical mechanisms involved, including how searches were processed, what servers were used and how third-party software facilitated flight reservations.
Bravofly responded largely by referring to a software specification manual. Ryanair’s expert evidence, which was not contradicted on the motion, indicated that the manual described how Bravofly’s software interfaced with another system rather than explaining the screen-scraping process which the court order required it to particularise.
Mr Justice Clarke therefore concluded that Bravofly had not complied with the order.
He nevertheless refused at that stage to strike out the relevant pleadings. Bravofly said it did not itself know the full technical workings of software supplied by third parties, including Travelfusion, and was trying to obtain the information.
The judge said striking out pleadings was a serious measure which should generally be a last resort after persistent and culpable non-compliance.
The matter was put back to 17 June 2009. Bravofly was expected either to provide compliant particulars by then or produce direct sworn evidence explaining its efforts, what information remained unavailable and what technical evidence it expected to rely on at trial.