- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ryanair Ltd v Unister GMBH and by order Aeruni GMBH
Factual and Procedural Background
Company A (“Plaintiff”) operates an airline booking website containing a clause selecting the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of The State. Company B (“Defendant A”) runs online travel portals that “screen-scrape” flight data. On 14 August 2009 the Plaintiff issued proceedings in The State alleging that Defendant A’s activities were unlawful. Defendant A, domiciled in Another Country, entered a conditional appearance solely to contest jurisdiction under Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (“the Brussels Regulation”).
While resisting jurisdiction, Defendant A averred that unidentified third-party providers performed the technical interaction with the Plaintiff’s website, thereby denying any contractual relationship that could engage the website’s jurisdiction clause. The Plaintiff sought (i) disclosure of those providers’ identities and (ii) their joinder as co-defendants under Order 15, rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
On 22 March 2011 Judge Gilligan ordered disclosure; he deferred joinder. The Supreme Court temporarily stayed disclosure. In parallel German litigation, Defendant A disclosed one provider, Company D, whose joinder was ordered on 15 April 2011. Defendant A appealed both the disclosure and joinder orders. The present judgment resolves those two appeals; other consequential appeals were held over.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a court of The State may order Norwich-Pharmacal-type disclosure of a third party’s identity while its own jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation remains actively contested.
- Whether it is appropriate to join Company D as a co-defendant before the court has ruled on Defendant A’s pending jurisdictional challenge.
- The extent to which a court whose jurisdiction is disputed may make interlocutory or procedural orders beyond those strictly necessary to determine jurisdiction or to grant protective measures under Article 31 of the Brussels Regulation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s (Defendant A) Arguments
- The courts of The State lack jurisdiction; any disclosure order should emanate from the courts of Another Country where Defendant A is domiciled.
- Norwich Pharmacal relief is substantive, not interlocutory; it should not be granted until jurisdiction is established.
- Joining Company D prejudices Defendant A and is procedurally improper while jurisdiction is uncertain.
Respondent’s (Plaintiff) Arguments
- Fair procedures require disclosure; Defendant A relies on unnamed providers to defeat the jurisdiction clause yet refuses to identify them.
- Disclosure is permissible under precedents such as EMI Records v Eircom and necessary to test Defendant A’s assertions.
- Joinder of Company D merely places before the court all parties allegedly involved and causes no prejudice to Defendant A.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| EMI Records v. Eircom [2005] 4 I.R. 148 | Authority for Norwich-Pharmacal disclosure orders | Trial judge relied on it; Supreme Court accepted its existence but limited its use where jurisdiction is disputed |
| Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 | Foundational case establishing disclosure against innocent facilitators | Provided conceptual backdrop for the disclosure sought |
| Reichert & Kockler (1992) ECR I-2149 | Scope of Article 31: provisional/protective measures | Court contrasted genuine protective orders with the disclosure sought |
| Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SA v. Hugo Trumpy SpA (1999) ECR I-5957 | Jurisdiction must be ascertainable without entering merits | Referenced in argument to show courts should be cautious about factual enquiries |
| Effer v. Kanter (Case 38/81) | Court may examine factual elements of a contract to decide jurisdiction | Used to show that limited factual enquiry is sometimes necessary |
| Societe Romanaise de la Chaussure SA v. British Shoe Corporation Ltd [1991] SSR 1 | Norwich-Pharmacal orders can issue at interlocutory stage | Cited by Plaintiff; Supreme Court did not reject the principle but found it inapposite here |
| St. Paul’s Dairy Industries NV v. Unibel Exser BVBA (Case C-104/03) | Evidence-gathering measures that assess litigation prospects are outside Article 31 | Relied on to hold that the requested disclosure was not an Article 31 measure |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Clarke, delivering the judgment of the Court, began by analysing the framework of the Brussels Regulation. A court first seised must decide jurisdiction promptly; other Member-State courts are stayed under Article 27. Pending that decision the court may only:
- Issue protective measures under Article 31; or
- Make procedural orders strictly necessary to resolve the jurisdiction question.
The Court characterised the Plaintiff’s disclosure motion. The affidavits focused on general litigation advantage—identifying additional defendants—rather than facts essential to jurisdiction. Merely obtaining names and contact details would add little to the core issue: whether a consensus on the jurisdiction clause existed.
Because the application did not meaningfully assist the jurisdiction enquiry and did not fall within Article 31, the High Court should have declined to grant it. Conversely, joining Company D raised no Article 31 concerns and did not prejudice Defendant A’s jurisdictional challenge; it simply placed before the court a party already identified in related proceedings.
Holding and Implications
Disclosure Appeal: ALLOWED. The order compelling Defendant A to disclose the identity and contact details of additional service providers is set aside.
Joinder Appeal: DISMISSED. The order joining Company D as a co-defendant is affirmed.
Implications: The judgment clarifies that, where jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation is in dispute, courts of The State must refrain from interlocutory orders that are not (a) protective within Article 31 or (b) necessary to decide jurisdiction. However, joinder of an additional defendant that does not impede the jurisdictional determination is permissible. No new precedent on the substantive merits of “screen-scraping” was established.
Alert