The High Court refused an interlocutory injunction sought by ER Travel Limited to restrain Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) from interfering with the company’s use of Dublin Airport’s short-term car parks to collect customers. The court said damages could be assessed and would be an adequate remedy for either party on the evidence available at the hearing.
Mr Justice Tony O’Connor delivered the ex tempore judgment on 21 May 2019. The application concerned ER Travel’s model of meeting pre-booked car-rental customers at the airport and taking them to its premises nearby, where they collected and returned cars. The judge’s account of the background was expressly non-binding on the parties and any court deciding later issues.
ER Travel alleged that DAA’s approach to airport by-laws unlawfully restricted its business. The judge identified a fair issue to be tried, including an allegation that DAA had abused a dominant position contrary to section 5 of the Competition Act 2002. He described that submission as compelling, but said the underlying public-law and competition-law issues remained for determination at a plenary hearing. The court did not decide whether DAA’s by-laws or their application were unlawful.
DAA argued that damages would be adequate if ER Travel succeeded at trial, and that granting an injunction could cause harm to DAA if it later won. It also submitted that the requested order would require it to facilitate ER Travel’s business model. ER Travel disputed that damages would suffice, citing customer-service concerns and the risk to repeat business. The judge was not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, by an affidavit assertion that ER Travel would inevitably have to cease trading. He noted that it had continued to operate and had grown its turnover, while allowing that it could seek a more refined order later if significant new evidence of irreparable damage emerged.
The judge said the existing position continued: ER Travel could use the short-term car park and direct customers to its nearby premises, but could still face prosecution in the District Court. He declined the injunction actually sought. He also said ER Travel could keep records of complaints and payments connected with customers’ or partners’ access to the airport.
The court ordered an expedited timetable for pleadings and case management, including a joint application for the proceedings to enter the High Court Competition List. The stated objective was to secure a date for the plenary hearing in Michaelmas Term 2019. Those directions advanced the proceedings; they did not resolve the parties’ substantive dispute.