Irish courts had jurisdiction to determine disputes concerning use of Irish airline’s website by travel companies

Charleton J (nem diss): jurisdiction of Irish courts to hear and determine disputes in three cases under Brussels I Regulation - all three cases concerned with use by online travel companies of the website of Ryanair Ltd to book flights for their customers through those travel companies instead of directly by the customer accessing that airline’s own website - result for customer is a slightly higher price but with a choice of several airlines flying from one destination to another - two separate but related sets of facts in two cases under appeal - in appeal no. 2010/108/109 Ryanair Ltd v. Billigfluege.de GmbH/Ticket Point Reisebüro GmbH, Hanna J has decided that use of the website of Ryanair by the online travel website Billigfluege amounted to a choice by them as to jurisdiction - in appeal number 2013/272 Ryanair Limited v On the Beach Limited, Laffoy J has made a similar decision on somewhat different facts consequent on the use by On the Beach of the Ryanair website - correct approach of an appellate court to disputed findings of fact where those facts as found by the trial judge derived entirely from affidavit evidence - party appealing decision bears burden of demonstrating that trial judge was incorrect as to whatever findings of fact underpin a decision - jurisdiction - Brussels I Regulation - general rule that defendant in proposed litigation should be sued in the country in which that defendant is domiciled - Billigfluege is a company registered under the laws of Germany - On the Beach is a company registered in England - Ryanair relied on the condition for use of the website term and, peripherally, on the booking consent provision as enabling Ireland to have jurisdiction - Article 23 of Brussels I Reg - whether there was agreement conferring jurisdiction that was evidenced in writing - Ryanair claim that every click of assent to their terms and conditions of their website or their booking of flight terms and conditions amounts to a “communication by electronic means” - also contend that through their computer booking system they can provide “a durable record of the agreement” - In both cases a consensus emerges as to jurisdiction in favour of the courts of Ireland - Article 23 permits agreement on a different choice of jurisdiction between the parties - clause 7 of its terms and conditions of use of its website specified that Ryanair could elect to take proceedings against any breach of those terms and conditions in Ireland, or elsewhere at its discretion - appellant travel companies argued that their customers were bound by those terms, and not the companies themselves - Hanna and Laffoy JJ individually reached conclusions in High Court that were open to them on the evidence as presented, albeit that their conclusions were reached on different grounds - burden of proof in taking such an appeal is on the appellant - no demonstration of error - decisions of the High Court were in accordance with Irish and EU precedent on the application of the Brussels I regulation - no finding of fact on the part of the High Court that had not been based on evidence - operative standard of proof in respect of a dispute over consensus as to jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation is the balance of probabilities - appeals dismissed.