Introduction

Ryanair DAC v. Skyscanner Ltd & Ors ([2020] IEHC 584) is a pivotal judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Twomey in the High Court of Ireland. This case revolves around the contentious issue of costs in the context of unsuccessful interlocutory injunction applications within commercial litigation. Ryanair, the plaintiff, sought to restrain Skyscanner from facilitating the sale of its flights on Skyscanner’s website, alleging unauthorized access to price, flight, and timetable (PFT) information, thereby breaching Ryanair’s Terms of Use.

The key issue addressed in this judgment is whether Ryanair should bear the costs arising from its failed application for an interlocutory injunction, especially considering the possibility that Ryanair might obtain a permanent injunction after the complete disclosure of evidence during the trial.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court evaluated Ryanair’s request to exempt it from paying costs associated with its unsuccessful interlocutory injunction application against Skyscanner. Ryanair contended that imposing costs would be unjust, particularly if it succeeded in obtaining a permanent injunction at trial. The Court meticulously analyzed existing legal principles governing cost allocations in interlocutory injunctions and referenced several precedents to determine the appropriate outcome.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the default principle of "costs follow the event" should apply, meaning Ryanair, as the unsuccessful party in the interlocutory stage, should bear the costs. However, recognizing Skyscanner’s non-forthcoming behavior and the extensive use of court time due to unnecessary litigation tactics, the Court awarded 50% of the costs to Skyscanner, with a 35% reduction to account for Skyscanner’s conduct.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents to underpin its analysis:

• Glaxo Group Ltd v. Rowex Ltd [2015] 1 I.R. 185: In this case, costs were reserved against a plaintiff who failed in an interlocutory application, emphasizing that costs should generally follow the event unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise.
• Paddy Burke (Builders) Ltd v. Tullyvaraga Management Company Ltd [2020] IEHC 199: Here, costs were not awarded against a failed interlocutory injunction applicant due to the possibility of evidence emerging that might support the plaintiff’s case at trial.
• Crowley v. Promontoria (Oyster) DAC & Ors [2020] IEHC 365: This case reinforced the principle that costs should follow the event, particularly when the interlocutory application lacks merit and leads to unnecessary expenses for the defendant.
• Godsil v. Ireland [2015] 4 I.R. 535: Highlighted the foundational principle that winning parties should not bear the costs of unsuccessful litigants, reinforcing fairness in the allocation of legal expenses.
• W.L. Construction Limited v. Chawke [2020] 1 I.L.R.M. 50: Addressed the issue of "consequence-free" litigation, cautioning against allowing parties to engage in litigation without bearing the financial repercussions of unsuccessful claims.

These precedents collectively emphasize the judiciary’s stance on ensuring fairness in cost allocations, discouraging frivolous applications, and upholding the principle that costs should generally follow the outcome of litigation.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning was anchored in the principle that "costs follow the event," as enshrined in sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. This principle ensures that parties who prevail in litigation are entitled to recover legal costs from the unsuccessful party, promoting fairness and deterring unnecessary or unfounded legal applications.

In applying this principle, the Court assessed whether Ryanair’s application for no costs was justified. While Ryanair argued that it might obtain a permanent injunction after the trial, the Court held that the decision to seek an interlocutory injunction carries inherent risks. Ryanair, having proceeded with the interlocutory application, should bear the costs of its failure at that stage to prevent undue financial burden on defendants and discourage tactical misuse of injunctions.

Moreover, the Court considered Skyscanner’s conduct, noting its deliberately non-forthcoming approach in disclosing how it accessed PFT information, which necessitated extended litigation and increased court time. This behavior justified a reduction in the costs awarded against Ryanair, acknowledging that Skyscanner also contributed to unnecessary litigation expenses.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the strict application of the "costs follow the event" principle in interlocutory injunctions, ensuring that parties cannot evade the financial repercussions of unsuccessful legal maneuvers. It sets a clear precedent that plaintiffs must have robust and substantiated grounds before seeking interlocutory injunctions, thereby safeguarding defendants from bearing unwarranted legal costs.

Furthermore, by awarding only a portion of the costs to Skyscanner due to its non-forthcoming conduct, the Court underscores the importance of parties conducting litigation with transparency and good faith. This aspect of the judgment will likely deter litigants from employing deceptive or obstructive tactics that unnecessarily prolong proceedings and inflate legal expenses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Interlocutory Injunction

An interlocutory injunction is a temporary court order granted before the final resolution of a case to prevent irreparable harm or to maintain the status quo. It is intended to preserve the parties’ rights pending the outcome of the main trial.

Costs Follow the Event

This legal principle dictates that the losing party in litigation should bear the legal costs of the prevailing party. It promotes fairness by ensuring that the party who causes the litigation to occur is responsible for the associated legal expenses.

Mandatory vs. Prohibitory Injunction

A mandatory injunction requires a party to take a specific action, while a prohibitory injunction restrains a party from performing a particular act. In this case, Ryanair sought a mandatory injunction requiring Skyscanner to disclose passenger email addresses.

Screen-Scraping

Screen-scraping refers to the automated extraction of data from websites. Ryanair alleged that Skyscanner was unlawfully using screen-scraping to obtain PFT information from Ryanair’s website, violating the site’s Terms of Use.

Conclusion

The High Court’s judgment in Ryanair DAC v. Skyscanner Ltd & Ors [2020] IEHC 584 establishes a reinforced application of the "costs follow the event" principle in interlocutory injunction proceedings. By holding Ryanair accountable for the costs of its unsuccessful interlocutory application, the Court underscores the necessity for litigants to present well-founded and substantiated claims when seeking injunctions. Additionally, the partial reduction of costs awarded to Skyscanner in light of its non-forthcoming conduct serves as a cautionary measure against obstructive litigation tactics.

Overall, this judgment contributes significantly to the jurisprudence surrounding cost allocations in injunction applications, promoting fairness, discouraging frivolous litigation, and ensuring that court resources are utilized judiciously. Future litigants can draw from this precedent to better assess the merits of pursuing interlocutory injunctions and the potential financial implications of unsuccessful legal strategies.