Adjournments Pending Foreign Proceedings Require Proven Overlap and Proportionality: High Court prioritises expeditious hearing and domestic warrant control in Ryanair v CCPC

Adjournments Pending Foreign Proceedings Require Proven Overlap and Proportionality: High Court prioritises expeditious hearing and domestic warrant control in Ryanair v CCPC

Introduction

In Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings plc v Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) and Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) [2025] IEHC 536, the High Court (Barrett J) refused an application by the CCPC to adjourn the Irish proceedings generally pending the conclusion of related Italian appeals. The case arises against the backdrop of cross-border competition enforcement activity, in which the CCPC obtained and executed a District Court search warrant at Ryanair’s Irish premises and materials were transferred to the AGCM. Ryanair commenced Irish proceedings challenging aspects of that process, including an application to inspect the formal Request for Assistance that precipitated the warrant (the “Inspection Motion”), while the CCPC brought a motion to strike out elements of the Statement of Claim (the “Strike-Out Motion”).

Parallel to these Irish proceedings, Ryanair pursued proceedings in Italy (the “Access Application” and “Annulment Application”) concerning the AGCM’s actions. While Ryanair initially succeeded at first instance in Italy, it lost on appeal and has brought a further appeal, with decisions expected in mid‑2026. Meanwhile, the AGCM indicated it intends to reach a decision in its investigation by December 2025. The CCPC sought a general adjournment in Ireland until the Italian appeals conclude, contending this would avoid wasted costs and potential duplication.

The High Court’s judgment delineates the proper exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its own process—especially where it is asked to defer to parallel foreign proceedings. It clarifies when a stay or adjournment will, and will not, be appropriate, and how the well‑established Kalix/Avoncore line of authority applies where foreign proceedings run in tandem with domestic proceedings concerning the validity of an Irish search warrant.

Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court refused to adjourn the Irish proceedings pending the outcome of Italian appeals.
  • The central reasons were:
    • The validity of the Irish search warrant is exclusively a matter for the Irish courts; foreign decisions are not binding on the Irish court.
    • No probative evidence (such as an affidavit from an Italian lawyer) demonstrated any overlap of issues justifying an adjournment; “cases are decided on evidence not on supposition.”
    • Whether Ryanair wins or loses in Italy, the Inspection Motion in Ireland will still require adjudication; thus the CCPC’s cost‑saving rationale was unpersuasive.
    • Adjournment would risk serious prejudice to Ryanair because the AGCM aims to issue a decision by December 2025 using seized materials whose retention and use are challenged in Ireland.
    • The Court can and will hear the Inspection and Strike‑Out Motions in Michaelmas Term 2025 and aims to deliver judgment before 31 December 2025, mitigating prejudice and preserving procedural fairness.
  • The Court considered and distinguished case law concerning stays in patent revocation/EPO opposition contexts, and applied the Kalix/Avoncore principles to deny the adjournment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The judgment engages two strands of authority:

1) The “Kalix/Avoncore” line

Barrett J relies on principles articulated by Clarke J in Kalix Fund v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd [2010] 2 I.R. 581 and deployed by McDonald J in Avoncore Ltd v Leeson Motors Ltd [2021] IEHC 163. The Court reproduces McDonald J’s summary (para. 29 in Avoncore) and annotates it with case‑specific observations. The key principles extracted include:

  • The court has a broad power to direct the conduct of proceedings, including an inherent power to stay one set of proceedings pending determination of another related set.
  • Case management must aim to avoid unnecessary duplication, inconsistent determinations, wasted costs, and the misuse of scarce court resources, while ensuring a just and expeditious trial.
  • Each plaintiff is entitled to expeditious determination, subject to avoiding disproportionate expense or drain on court time.
  • Measures that prevent a case from progressing must be no more than necessary and proportionate to the goal of preventing unnecessary cost or court usage.
  • Consider whether one case is likely to bind others; where there is no binding effect, the rationale for adjournment weakens.

The Court applies these principles to find that:

  • Any risk of inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions is neither unusual nor determinative; the matters are different, arise in different fora, and involve different parties (Ryanair is the only common party), with no binding cross‑effect.
  • There is insufficient evidence of undue duplication; indeed, any duplication would mostly prejudice Ryanair, which seeks to proceed.
  • An adjournment would not serve proportionality or the goal of expeditious justice.

2) Patent/EPO opposition stay cases

The CCPC relied on McDonald J’s decision in Condensed Aminodihydrothiazine Derivative & The Patents Act 1992 [2018] IEHC 467, which, together with related cases, addresses stays of Irish revocation proceedings pending European Patent Office opposition. The Court holds this line of authority inapposite. Even if it were relevant, the Court emphasises it retains ultimate discretion and, on the instant facts, the balance does not favour adjournment. The distinguishing features include:

  • In patent revocation/EPO opposition scenarios, there may be a single subject matter (patent validity) with risks of contradictory determinations on a unitary issue; here, the issues are not unitary and the foreign decisions have no binding effect on the Irish court’s warrant jurisdiction.
  • The Irish and Italian issues are functionally distinct: the validity of the Irish search warrant is for the Irish courts alone; Italian proceedings address different questions under Italian law concerning the AGCM’s process.

Legal Reasoning and Application

1) Source and scope of the Court’s power

The Court identifies its reliance on inherent jurisdiction to adjourn or stay proceedings. While Kalix references O.63A r.5 (Commercial List case management powers), Barrett J clarifies that, here, the relevant power is the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is flexible but bounded by principles of justice, proportionality, and efficient use of resources.

2) Evidence, not supposition, as the gateway to adjournment

A critical holding is that a party seeking an adjournment to await foreign proceedings must adduce cogent evidence of material overlap or duplication. The CCPC did not provide an affidavit from an Italian lawyer (or equivalent) explaining any substantive overlap in legal or factual issues that would justify deferment. The Court expressly notes: “Cases are decided on evidence not on supposition.” Absent evidence, the Court cannot find that overlap exists on the balance of probabilities.

3) Binding effect and risk of inconsistent determinations

The Court weighs the risk of inconsistent determinations and finds it non‑decisive because:

  • No decision of the Italian courts will bind the Irish court’s assessment of the validity of an Irish search warrant, and vice versa.
  • Contrasting outcomes in separate jurisdictions on different issues involving different parties are a normal feature of transnational litigation and do not, without more, warrant a stay.

The contrast with patent revocation/EPO opposition, where a unitary validity issue risks direct inconsistency, underscores why adjournment is unwarranted here.

4) Costs and prejudice analysis

The CCPC’s principal argument was that allowing the Irish Strike‑Out Motion to proceed would waste costs if the AGCM ultimately failed in Italy (or, as characterised at hearing, if the Italian process is a “precursor” that could curtail Irish litigation). The Court rejects this logic:

  • Whatever the Italian outcome, the Inspection Motion remains live and must be heard in Ireland. If Ryanair loses in Italy, it still contends it was injured by the manner in which the Irish search warrant was obtained.
  • The CCPC is not a party to the Italian proceedings, so the Italian costs regime and outcomes do not impact the CCPC’s costs.
  • If the CCPC succeeds in the Irish motions, it is likely to recover costs from a solvent, well‑resourced party; if it loses, costs will not be recovered—as is typical. Either way, the CCPC is not materially worse off by proceeding now.

Conversely, real prejudice to Ryanair looms if the Irish motions are deferred:

  • The AGCM has indicated a December 2025 target to reach a decision in its investigation, which could be adverse and attract media attention and penalties.
  • If the Inspection Motion is heard and Ryanair succeeds on the warrant challenge, the AGCM has indicated it would return the seized materials. Early adjudication could therefore prevent use of materials that “ought never to have” been available.
  • Deferring the Irish motions would risk an AGCM decision being taken while the lawfulness of the Irish seizure remains undecided—a result the Court views as potentially unjust.

5) Expeditious justice and judicial control of timing

Emphasising the Kalix/Avoncore principle that plaintiffs are entitled to expeditious determinations (subject to proportionality), the Court notes it will list and hear the Inspection and Strike‑Out Motions in the Michaelmas Term 2025 and, importantly, “almost certainly” deliver judgment before 31 December 2025. This sequencing ensures that Ryanair’s entitlement to timely adjudication is honoured and any prejudice from the AGCM’s timeline is mitigated.

6) Comity and international dimension

While the judgment does not frame the analysis in terms of comity, its approach reflects measured respect for parallel foreign proceedings without ceding domestic judicial control. Crucially, all parties accept that the validity of the Irish warrant is exclusively a matter for the Irish courts. That jurisdictional demarcation strongly informs the Court’s refusal to adjourn.

Impact and Significance

1) A clarified, evidence‑based threshold for adjournments pending foreign proceedings

The judgment crystallises that a party seeking to halt or delay Irish proceedings until foreign proceedings conclude bears an evidential burden:

  • They must demonstrate a material and concrete overlap of issues or risks of inconsistent, binding determinations—not mere assertions.
  • They must show that an adjournment is necessary and proportionate to avoid duplication, wasted costs, or misuse of court resources.
  • They must grapple with the plaintiff’s entitlement to expeditious adjudication.

2) Domestic control over the validity of Irish coercive measures

The decision reaffirms that the lawfulness of Irish search warrants lies within the exclusive competence of the Irish courts. Foreign administrative or judicial processes—even in closely coordinated regulatory contexts—cannot displace or defer domestic judicial oversight of Irish judicial acts.

3) Practical guidance for regulators and litigants

  • Regulators seeking adjournment pending foreign outcomes should marshal expert evidence (e.g., affidavit evidence from foreign counsel) showing true overlap and concrete case‑management efficiencies.
  • Where reputational or substantive prejudice could accrue from foreign use of domestically seized materials while domestic challenges are pending, courts may prioritise timely domestic adjudication.
  • Parties should consider targeted, proportionate case‑management measures as alternatives to general adjournment; blanket deferrals are disfavoured absent compelling evidence.

4) Competition enforcement and cross‑border cooperation

In the competition context, the judgment underscores that cross‑border cooperation does not insulate foreign investigations from the consequences of defects in domestic steps (e.g., warrant validity). If domestic seizure is unlawful, downstream foreign investigative use of seized material becomes vulnerable to interruption or reversal. This may incentivise timely domestic resolution before foreign milestones, as occurred here with the Court’s intention to decide before the AGCM’s year‑end timeline.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Adjournment vs Stay:
    • Both are tools the court can use to pause or sequence proceedings. A “stay” is a formal pause; an “adjournment generally” is a deferment without a fixed resumption date. Both are discretionary and guided by proportionality and efficiency.
  • Inherent Jurisdiction:
    • The Court’s inherent authority to manage its own process to ensure fairness, prevent abuse, and allocate resources efficiently, even where not expressly conferred by rules of court.
  • Kalix/Avoncore Principles:
    • A set of case‑management criteria guiding when proceedings may be sequenced or stayed to avoid duplication, inconsistent outcomes, or wasted costs, while safeguarding expeditious justice.
  • Inspection Motion:
    • Here, Ryanair’s motion to compel production for inspection of the formal Request for Assistance that underpinned the CCPC’s warrant application.
  • Strike‑Out Motion:
    • The CCPC’s application to strike portions of Ryanair’s Statement of Claim as legally unsustainable.
  • Access and Annulment Applications (Italy):
    • Proceedings in the Italian administrative courts concerning Ryanair’s access to documents and challenges to the AGCM’s investigatory steps. Their outcomes are non‑binding on the Irish court’s warrant‑validity analysis.
  • Michaelmas/Hilary Term:
    • Legal “terms” in the Irish courts calendar. Michaelmas typically runs in the autumn to early winter; Hilary follows early in the new year. Timing here was significant because the AGCM aimed to conclude by December 2025.
  • Ad idem:
    • Latin for “of the same mind” or “in agreement.” The Court notes the Irish and Italian courts agree that Irish warrant validity is for the Irish courts alone.

Conclusion

Ryanair v CCPC & AGCM [2025] IEHC 536 is a principled affirmation of evidence‑based case management in the face of parallel foreign proceedings. Barrett J declined to adjourn the Irish proceedings, emphasising that:

  • The party seeking adjournment must prove real overlap, duplication, or binding effects; assertions are insufficient.
  • Domestic courts retain exclusive authority over the validity of Irish coercive measures; foreign processes cannot displace timely domestic review.
  • Expeditious adjudication and proportionality are central; delays must be justified, necessary, and tailored.
  • Prejudice analysis matters: here, delaying would risk significant injustice to Ryanair, whereas proceeding now imposes no disproportionate burden on the CCPC.

The judgment refines and applies the Kalix/Avoncore framework to cross‑border regulatory investigations and sets a clear practical benchmark: adjournments pending foreign proceedings will be rare absent concrete, sworn evidence of material overlap and a demonstrable proportionality case. It thus provides a roadmap for future litigants and regulators navigating the intersection of domestic procedural rights and transnational enforcement timelines.

Case Details

Comments