A HIGH Court judge has said he has been driven to conclude “the truth and Ryanair are uncomfortable bedfellows” in light of Ryanair’s conduct in challenging proposed new charges at Dublin airport for the five years up to 2014.
“Having had to consider Ryanair’s untruths to the court, its untruths about the court and its untruths about the Minister [for Transport, Noel Dempsey], one has to conclude that the truth and Ryanair are uncomfortable bedfellows,” Mr Justice Peter Kelly said.
Factual misstatements in affidavits put by Ryanair before the court had “misled the court in a material way”, he noted.
Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary had, in a letter to Mr Dempsey last February, “seriously misrepresented” the position of the judge. A later letter to the Minister from Ryanair’s head of legal affairs, Juliusz Komorek, was “to like effect”. Mr O’Leary had also made “a pathetic attempt” to try and justify the untruth in his letter.
“These are grave matters and fall far below the standards that the court is entitled to expect.”
Mr Justice Kelly made the remarks in a judgment yesterday refusing Ryanair leave to bring a judicial review challenge to a determination by the Commission for Aviation Regulation of December 4th last fixing maximum charges for Dublin airport over the years 2010-2014.
Ryanair has also appealed against the decision to a panel set up by the Minister for Transport.
Both the commission and the Dublin Airport Authority argued that Ryanair should be refused leave because it had itself said the appeals panel could address its grievances with the CAR decision more speedily and more cost effectively.
The commission and the DAA also argued that Ryanair’s grounds for judicial review all related to the merits of the decision when judicial review can only address whether there was illegality of unfairness in how a decision was reached, not its merits.
It was further claimed Ryanair’s “misconduct” of the proceedings was a factor the court should take into account in exercising its discretion whether to grant leave.
Ryanair rejected those arguments and insisted, while favouring an appeal, it was also entitled to pursue a judicial review. One of its difficulties was the appeals panel’s decision was not binding on the commission, it said.
It emerged this week that the appeals panel had upheld Ryanair’s complaint and that passengers using the new Terminal 2 at Dublin airport should pay a different charge to those travelling through the existing terminal.
Mr Justice Kelly refused leave for judicial review because of Ryanair’s own clear statement that an appeal against the charges was its preferred course and provided a “cost-efficient, quick and satisfactory forum” for addressing its grievances. “Rarely, if ever, does one find a party to litigation making such a comprehensive case – against itself,” he said.
He added that he did not regard the grounds advanced for leave as substantial.
Noting he had been invited by the DAA to find there was an “ingrained culture of disrespect” for process, including court process, within Ryanair, Mr Justice Kelly said that given the untruths he had referred to, he had to conclude the airline and the truth were uncomfortable bedfellows.
In a statement later, Stephen McNamara of Ryanair said it was “considering appealing this judgement with its lawyers particularly since the Aviation Appeals Panel has ruled that the CAR’s charges determination for Dublin airport for 2010-2014 was flawed”.
