Ryanair DAS v Flightbox SP Z.O.O.

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns three case management motions brought by Plaintiff against Defendant entities in separate but related actions involving allegations of unauthorized harvesting and use of information from Plaintiff's website, commonly referenced as "screen scraping." These three actions form part of a larger group of litigation involving Plaintiff and various Defendants across multiple jurisdictions. The motions were filed on 7th December 2021 and sought directions and case management orders to facilitate just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution of the proceedings.

The actions include one commenced in 2010 against Defendant A, which experienced delays and a pending motion to dismiss for delay; a 2017 action against Defendants B and C, where a modular trial approach was ordered by a prior judge to address claims and counterclaims; and a 2020 action against Defendant D, where service issues have arisen and no appearance has been entered. A fourth related action against Defendant E was also referenced, currently subject to interlocutory proceedings and appeal, with a pending application to transfer the case back to another court list.

During the hearing, the Plaintiff sought formal case management orders for two of the actions and an adjournment for the third due to service issues. Defendants resisted the motions, expressing concern about the linking of the cases and potential prejudice. The court considered the extensive procedural history, the overlap in factual and legal issues, and the practicalities of managing multiple related proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should grant case management orders under the Rules of the Superior Courts and inherent jurisdiction to coordinate the conduct of the related screen scraping proceedings.
2. Whether case management in each action should occur alongside or be linked to case management in the other related actions.
3. Whether it is appropriate to assign a single judge to manage all related proceedings or to maintain separate management given the differences in parties, claims, and procedural stages.
4. Whether the action against Defendant D, where no appearance has been entered, should be adjourned or struck out.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Sought case management orders to ensure just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution of the related screen scraping cases.
• Requested that case management in each action proceed alongside the others to identify commonalities and facilitate coordination.
• Did not seek consolidation but proposed assignment of a judge to oversee the related litigation for efficiency and consistency.
• Acknowledged inability to prove service on Defendant D and requested adjournment of that motion.
• Proposed a timetable for progressing discovery, witness statements, expert reports, and counterclaims in the 2017 action.

Defendants' Arguments

• Opposed linking or uniform case management of the separate actions, emphasizing different businesses and distinct competition law issues.
• Asserted that informal case management in the 2017 action had been effective and saw no need for formal orders or linking to other cases.
• Feared that linking the cases would increase their costs and complicate their litigation unnecessarily.
• Objected to any suggestion of prioritizing Plaintiff’s litigation over other court business by assigning a single judge to all related cases.
• Suggested that the motion to dismiss in the 2010 action should be resolved before any case management could proceed there.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the procedural posture and distinct characteristics of each action. It found that the 2010 action was at an early and uncertain stage due to a pending motion to dismiss for delay, making case management premature. The 2020 action against Defendant D, lacking an appearance and plagued by service issues, was unsuitable for case management and more appropriately subject to striking out rather than adjournment.

Regarding the 2017 action involving Defendants B and C, the court acknowledged prior effective informal case management and the modular trial structure established by a previous judge. It concluded that formal case management orders were appropriate to facilitate orderly progress, particularly concerning discovery and proposed counterclaims.

The court was not persuaded that the competition law claims across the different defendants shared sufficient commonality to warrant linking or joint case management. While some commonality existed in the terms and conditions claims, these were not complex or technical enough to justify a single judge managing all related proceedings. The court recognized the defendants’ concerns that linking the cases would increase their costs and complicate their litigation.

Ultimately, the court decided against linking the cases or assigning a single judge to manage all related litigation, but it allowed case management orders in respect of the 2017 action. It also directed specific steps and timelines for discovery and counterclaim amendments in that action. The court emphasized that any further case management would be handled by the chancery list judge or an appropriate chancery judge as needed.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED case management orders for the 2017 action, setting directions for discovery, exchange of witness statements, expert reports, and the filing of a draft amended defence and counterclaim by Defendant C.

The court REFUSED to link the case management of the three actions or assign a single judge to manage all related proceedings.

The court STRUCK OUT the motion in the 2020 action against Defendant D due to failure to enter an appearance and service issues, rather than adjourning it.

The court deferred case management in the 2010 action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss for delay.

These decisions maintain procedural independence of the actions reflecting their differing stages and issues, avoiding undue prejudice to defendants and preserving judicial resources. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily addresses case management appropriateness and procedural efficiency in multi-action litigation involving related parties and claims.