The High Court has refused Ryanair’s applications to strike out Skyscanner’s competition-law defence and counterclaim and to divide the case into a modular trial.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Quinn on 9 December 2022, leaves Ryanair’s claims and Skyscanner’s competition allegations to be determined at a full hearing. It does not decide whether either side’s allegations are true or establish liability.
Ryanair alleges that Skyscanner used automated systems to obtain flight prices, schedules and other data from its website, and used or facilitated the sale of Ryanair flights. It brings claims including breach of contract, intellectual property infringement and economic torts. Skyscanner denies engaging in the alleged activities. In the alternative, it says that if it did so, Ryanair’s conduct amounted to an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Ryanair argued that the alternative competition plea was inconsistent with Skyscanner’s denial of the alleged conduct and should be removed. Mr Justice Quinn found that the denial did not deprive Skyscanner of standing or make its counterclaim hypothetical. He said the alleged screen scraping raised complex factual and legal issues that could not safely be resolved on this application. Alternative pleas are permitted, he said, provided they are properly expressed and supported; the court did not determine the underlying allegations.
The judge also refused Ryanair’s request to hear the case in two stages: first, its claims described as liability issues, and later, the competition-law issues. He was not persuaded that the first stage would make the counterclaim unnecessary if Ryanair lost, or that dividing the proceedings would produce overall savings in time and cost. He said separating the issues risked damaging the defendants’ case and delaying a final determination, and that the proposed approach had not been shown to serve the interests of both sides and the court.
The court dismissed both applications. It directed the parties to focus on preparing the case efficiently and to propose realistic timetables for pre-trial steps, including discovery, at a later directions hearing. The judgment does not determine the merits of Ryanair’s claims or Skyscanner’s counterclaim.