Injunction restraining Ryanair refused

A HIGH Court judge has refused to grant an injunction restraining Ryanair from intimidating agency staff selling rail tickets for London at Dublin airport on behalf of a UK company. The airline has denied the allegation.

Mr Justice John MacMenamin said yesterday such an order (sought pending the outcome of a full court action) was unnecessary because Ticket Generator Ltd (TGL), 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 the 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 from interfering with or obstructing staff engaged in selling tickets for TGL at the airport.

In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice MacMenamin was critical of both sides.

He criticised TGL’s failure to provide certain information, including where precisely its 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 noted its licence agreement with Dublin Airport Authority permitting it to sell tickets was not an “exclusive” licence but that solicitors for TGL had incorrectly claimed it held an exclusive franchise.

The judge 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”.

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, Mr Justice MacMenamin was prepared to find TGL had made out a serious issue to be tried as to whether Ryanair had unlawfuly interfered with its contractual and commercial relationship with other parties.

The dispute between TGL and Ryanair on several issues, including about the location of the kiosk and the prices of rail tickets being offered by both sides, could not be resolved at this stage, the judge said.