Turisvivienda SAS v Air BnB Ireland UnLtd Company

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a Colombian company operating managed short-term rental properties in The City, used the Defendant’s accommodation platform from 2019. The parties’ terms of service conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Irish courts. [1][2]

The Defendant disabled the Plaintiff’s account on 23 June 2025 after identifying communications that it considered inconsistent with its policies prohibiting sex tourism and sex work. The Plaintiff appealed and provided evidence of measures intended to prevent prohibited activity, but the Defendant refused to restore the account. [3][4][5]

The Plaintiff later commenced these proceedings seeking an interlocutory injunction requiring restoration of the account. The application was made approximately ten months after the account was disabled. [6][7]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the requested restoration of the account constituted mandatory or prohibitory relief, and whether the Plaintiff had to satisfy the strong-case test or the lower fair-question test. [8][9][10]
2. Whether the Plaintiff had established a strong case that the Defendant acted unlawfully or in breach of contract by disabling the account. [11][12]
3. Whether the Plaintiff could obtain the requested relief at trial. [13][14]
4. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, particularly having regard to the adequacy of damages, the parties’ respective interests, and delay. [15][16][17][18]

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments

• The requested injunction restored the status quo and was therefore prohibitory, requiring only a fair question to be tried. [8][9]
• The Defendant breached its terms of service by failing to follow them, disabling the account for an uncontractual reason, relying on an uncertain term, and applying the term disproportionately. [19][20]
• The Defendant unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff’s economic relations, although the alleged interference substantially depended on the asserted contractual breach. [11]
• The communications relied upon by the Defendant did not establish that the Plaintiff permitted or promoted sex work, and could reasonably bear innocent interpretations. [21][22][23]
• The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s financial impact was substantially greater than any impact on the Defendant. [17]

Defendant’s Arguments

• The injunction was mandatory because it required restoration of the account, so the Plaintiff had to establish a strong case likely to succeed at trial. [8]
• The Defendant maintained that it had reasonably concluded that the Plaintiff’s account activity violated its sex-tourism policies. [4][5][17]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Court treated the application as seeking mandatory relief. Although restoration could ordinarily be described as restoring the status quo, the relevant account had been disabled for approximately ten months before urgent relief was sought. A status quo that had not existed for that period could not provide the basis for treating the injunction as prohibitory. [9][24][10]

Applying the strong-case test, the Court did not decide whether the communications actually indicated sex work. Instead, it assessed whether the Defendant’s conclusion was reasonably reached and lawful under the parties’ contract. The Plaintiff had not shown a strong case that the Defendant’s conclusion was unreasonable, groundless, or unlawful, or that the account was disabled in retaliation for the Plaintiff’s complaint. [12]

The Court also held that the Plaintiff had not shown a strong case that it would obtain reinstatement at trial. The requested interlocutory relief was the same substantive relief sought on a permanent basis, rather than an order merely restraining termination contrary to the contract. [13][14][31]

The proportionality argument failed because the Court considered the relevant policy wording clear. It also was not satisfied that proportionality applied to the termination of this commercial contract. [32]

Alternatively, the balance of convenience favoured refusing relief. The evidence did not establish that the Plaintiff’s viability was seriously threatened, and its losses were financial and compensable in damages. The Plaintiff also had access to other accommodation platforms and had not explained why it could not mitigate its losses through them. [16][33][27]

The Court considered the Defendant’s reputational interests, including its reasonably based concerns about activity inconsistent with its prohibition on sex work and its efforts to address sex-trafficking risks in The City. [17]

The Plaintiff’s delay weighed against relief. The arbitration relied upon involved the Plaintiff’s majority shareholder rather than the Plaintiff, and no adequate explanation was given for the remaining delay. [18] The Court regarded Bhblasted as more applicable than Betty Martin because of the different contractual circumstances. [28][30]

Holding and Implications

The interlocutory injunction was refused. The Plaintiff did not satisfy the strong-case test, and the balance of convenience independently favoured refusal because damages were adequate, the Defendant’s interests were engaged, and the Plaintiff had delayed in seeking relief. [34][27][17][18]

The direct effect was that the Defendant was not required to restore the Plaintiff’s account pending trial. The Court indicated that costs and further procedural directions would be addressed at a later hearing. [35][36]

The opinion discusses no broader implications; no new precedent was set.