The Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) has asked the High Court to stop Ryanair from proceeding with a challenge to the granting of planning permission for a second terminal at Dublin airport. The DAA claims Ryanair's challenge to the permission should be struck out because of a settlement reached between the private airline and the Government in March 2006.
An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the second terminal, T2, last August, and Ryanair launched a High Court challenge to the validity of that decision in September.
The DAA says the bringing of the Ryanair action is contrary to the agreement which led to the withdrawal of previous High Court proceedings by the airline against the Taoiseach, the Minister for Transport and the Attorney General over the decision in May 2005 to give the DAA approval to proceed with plans for T2.
In opposing the DAA attempt to halt the proceedings, Ryanair says it is entitled to bring a new challenge because the permission granted was not in keeping with terms of the settlement agreement which provided, it claims, that the size and cost of T2 should effectively be "capped". Ryanair claims the permission given to the DAA exceeds the terms of settlement.
Yesterday, Paul Sreenan SC, for the DAA, said Ryanair had agreed under the terms of settlement not to bring further challenges against, arising out of, or connected with the May 2005 Government decision.
Mr Sreenan said the Government decision in 2005 was based on passenger projections of 30 million by 2020. The Government envisaged that T2 should be built by 2009. Ryanair had argued that an operator independent of the DAA, preferably Ryanair, should operate T2 and that it should be located to the west of the old Team/FLS building at the airport. Ryanair also suggested that it could build the terminal at a lower cost.
When Ryanair lodged proceedings against the 2005 decision, it claimed the decision to allow the DAA build the terminal was an abuse of its dominant position and the Taoiseach and the Government were involved in that.
It was also a breach of EU treaties and competition law, Ryanair claimed. It also claimed the decision was made to allow "inefficient" and "trade union-controlled" work practices to continue at the new terminal and that it would also lead to the DAA imposing increased fees on airlines to support those practices.
As well as seeking to quash the 2005 decision, Ryanair sought damages from the Government. However, the case was settled in March 2006.
Mr Sreenan said a "significant step" in the chronology of events leading to the settlement was a masterplan report in September 2005 by architects Pascall and Watson, which gave a number of options on how the terminal should be built.
Following this report, the DAA submitted its formal planning application to Fingal council, which granted permission, and this was confirmed last August by An Bord Pleanála.
Then in September, Ryanair launched this latest challenge by way of judicial review, he said. Ryanair claims, in this latest challenge, that it is not bound by the 2006 settlement with the Government because the permission granted by An Bord Pleanála was not in keeping with the Pascall and Watson report, he said.
Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, said the DAA decided to expand the project to a 75,000sq m facility from 50,000sq m. Ryanair regarded this as "a gold plated Taj Mahal", the cost of which would be passed on to airlines.
Mr Justice Frank Clarke has been asked by the DAA to decide whether the planning process for T2 is part of the implementation of the Pascall and Watson masterplan. He is also being asked to decide whether Ryanair should agree to not bring any further challenges.
The case continues.