A High Court judge has refused, on condition of Ryanair’s consent to provide certain undertakings, to grant an injunction restraining the airline allegedly intimidating agency staff selling rail tickets for London at Dublin airport on behalf of a UK company.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin said today such an order (sought pending the outcome of a full court action) was unnecessary because Ticket Generator Ltd, if it won its case against Ryanair, would have an adequate remedy in damages.
His refusal was conditional on Ryanair’s agreement to give undertakings in the same terms as an interim order previously granted against it, he said.
Ryanair, while denying it has engaged in any unlawful activities, said it would give those undertakings, including not to issue misleading information to passengers relating to tickets sold by TGL at its kiosk at Terminal One in Dublin airport.
The undertakings are to apply pending the outcome of the High Court action against the airline by TGL over alleged obstruction of its ticket sales business at Dublin Airport.
TGL had secured interim orders against Ryanair last month restraining it handing out misleading information related to the tickets sold by TGL at its kiosk. The company then sought an interlocutory order against Ryanair restraining it interfering with or obstructing staff engaged in selling tickets for TGL at the airport.
In his reserved judgment today, Mr Justice MacMenamim was critical of both sides over a number of matters. He criticised TGL’s failure to provide certain information, including where precisely the TGL kiosk was to be located at the airport.
This was a material omission as one of the issues in the case concerned where TGL intended to sell tickets, he said. He also noted TGL’s license agreement with the Dublin Airport Authority permitting it to sell tickets was not an “exclusive” license but that solicitors for TGL had incorrectly claimed, in a letter to the DAA, that TGL held an exclusive franchise.
The judge also criticised Ryanair over providing affidavits full of “hype”, “propaganda” and “advertising”. The purpose of affidavits was to outline “evidence”, not to engage in commercial advertising or “a slagging match”, he said.
The judge said the injunction sought now was broader than the interim orders previously granted and he would refuse it on the basis of his finding that TGL, if it won the case, would have an adequate remedy in damages as its losses could be easily quantified. He also refused the injunction because of inadequate information from TGL concerning its financial position and therefore its ability to honour an undertaking for damages.
For the purpose of the injunction application only, he was prepared to find TGL had made out a serious issue to be tried as to whether Ryanair had unlawfully interfered with its contractual and commercial relationship with other parties, the judge also said.
The dispute between TGL and Ryanair on several issues, including about the location of the TGL kiosk at Terminal one and the prices of rail tickets being offered by both sides, could not be resolved at this stage, he said.
The balance of convenience lay in preserving the situation via undertakings by Ryanair in the same terms as the interim orders previously granted to TGL restraining distribution of misleading information about TGL’s business at Dublin Airport, he ruled.
