Ryanair Ltd v Bravofly Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

This case was admitted to the Commercial Court and has involved numerous contested procedural applications, including a prior judgment delivered on 29th January 2009. The current issue concerns the Defendant's compliance with a court order requiring further and better particulars of its defence and counterclaim. The Plaintiff argues non-compliance and seeks to strike out parts of the defence and counterclaim on that basis.

At a general level, there is no significant factual dispute about the Defendant's service enabling customers to search for and book flights with the Plaintiff via the Defendant's website. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's activities breach contract terms, amount to conversion of the Plaintiff's website and databases, infringe copyright, and breach database rights under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. The Defendant denies these allegations and asserts that it does not access the Plaintiff's website directly, but that any contact is between the user and the Plaintiff.

The key factual dispute centers on whether the Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's website is sufficient to give rise to contractual and intellectual property claims. The Plaintiff sought detailed particulars of the Defendant's technical operations, and the Court ordered the Defendant to provide these particulars. The Defendant delayed in providing them and ultimately referred to a software specification manual, which the Plaintiff contends is inadequate.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant has complied with the court order requiring further and better particulars of its defence and counterclaim.
2. If non-compliance is established, what is the appropriate sanction or court action to be taken.
3. The adequacy and sufficiency of the particulars provided by the Defendant in response to the court order.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Defendant failed to comply with the court order by providing only a software specification manual that does not address the detailed technical particulars required.
• The specification relates to software interfacing with a third party (Hitchhiker) and does not describe the actual processes used to facilitate flight purchases from the Plaintiff.
• The Plaintiff presented expert evidence concluding that the specification does not fulfill the requirements of the order.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant contends that it does not know the precise technical details of third-party software (Travelfusion) it licenses and that such details can only be obtained from those third parties.
• It asserts that it may be able to provide further particulars once inquiries with third parties are completed.
• The Defendant argues that the replies referencing the specification manual are appropriate for pleading purposes, as the software in use was substantially the same as that described in the manual.
• The Defendant claims that technical replies naturally must be complex and not in simple English, and that referring to a technical manual is prima facie adequate.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the Defendant's replies in light of the order for particulars, focusing on whether the provided software specification manual adequately addressed the detailed technical questions posed. Expert evidence indicated that the manual described how the Defendant's software should interface with third-party screen-scraping software, but did not explain the actual technical activities performed, especially those facilitating the purchase of the Plaintiff's flights.

The Court found that the Defendant had not complied with the order because the replies did not sufficiently answer the particulars required. However, the Court recognized that the Defendant’s lack of access to detailed third-party information and ongoing inquiries justified allowing additional time to comply. The Court emphasized that striking out parts of the defence is a severe sanction reserved for persistent and culpable failures, which was not established here.

The Court also rejected the Plaintiff's complaint regarding the format of the replies, noting that technical matters necessarily require technical explanations, and that a reference to a specification manual could be adequate if it fully addressed the particulars. The discrepancy between the manual’s reference to Hitchhiker software rather than Travelfusion software was acknowledged as a factual matter for trial and not a basis to reject the pleadings at this stage.

The Court ordered the Defendant to provide full particulars conforming to the original order by a specified date and indicated that failure to do so would require clear sworn evidence explaining the reasons and efforts made to comply. The Court reserved the right to consider further sanctions based on the evidence presented at that time.

Holding and Implications

The Court declined to strike out parts of the Defendant's defence and counterclaim for non-compliance with the order for particulars at this stage.

The Defendant was granted additional time to provide detailed particulars conforming to the court order. The Court emphasized the seriousness of non-compliance but allowed latitude given the Defendant’s difficulties in obtaining technical information from third parties.

The direct effect is that the Defendant must comply with the order by the specified deadline or face potential sanctions, including possible striking out. No new legal precedent was established by this decision; it primarily applied procedural principles regarding compliance with court orders and the appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion in managing complex technical pleadings.