Lipton and another v BA Cityflyer Ltd
[2024] UKSC 24
On The Beach Limited & Ors v Ryanair UK Limited & Anor
31 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2694 (Comm)
High Court
Online travel agents OTB Group got back money from Ryanair for flights cancelled during the pandemic because the court said the law let them and Ryanair was unjustly enriched by not paying the refunds OTB paid to customers.
Key Facts
- •OTB Group (online travel agents) claims £2 million from Ryanair for flight refunds issued to travellers due to Ryanair cancellations or significant flight changes.
- •Ryanair disputes liability but acknowledges willingness to refund for commercial reasons if appropriate arrangements are made to prevent double refunds.
- •The litigation is part of a wider, long-standing dispute between Ryanair and OTB Group regarding flight bookings.
- •OTB Group's claim is based on Regulation 29 of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (PTRs) and unjust enrichment.
- •Ryanair challenges the legal basis of OTB Group's claim and disputes several factual aspects, including whether OTB acted as travellers' agents and whether flights were cancelled or significantly altered.
- •OTB Group booked Ryanair flights as the traveller's agent, using OTB-controlled email addresses and corporate payment cards.
- •Ryanair's website terms of use prohibit online travel agents from selling Ryanair flights.
- •OTB Group claims that thousands of flights were cancelled or significantly changed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, triggering refund obligations under the PTRs.
Legal Principles
Summary Judgment - Realistic Prospect of Success
CPR Part 24, Easyair Ltd v. Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Striking Out - Abuse of Process, No Reasonable Grounds
CPR 3.4(2), The Federal Republic of Nigeria v J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. [2019] EWHC 347 (Comm)
Subsequent statement of case must not contradict or be inconsistent with an earlier one
PD16 §9.2
Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (PTRs)
Regulations 11, 13, 14, 29
Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 (Regulation 261)
Articles 5(1), 8(1)(a), 8(2)
Unjust Enrichment
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, common law
Declaratory Relief
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.19; Judicature Act 1873, s.16
Outcomes
Ryanair's application to strike out parts of OTB Group's Reply and for reverse summary judgment dismissed.
The reply did not introduce a new cause of action but clarified existing ones. Ryanair's arguments on unjust enrichment lacked merit due to the unconditional nature of Ryanair’s offered refunds.
Regulation 29 of the PTRs found to create a statutory right of redress for organisers.
The wording 'may seek redress' confers a right, not just permission; this is consistent with the overall purpose of the PTRs to provide a comprehensive framework for consumer protection.
OTB Group's claims under Regulation 29 and unjust enrichment succeed, except for refunds Ryanair paid directly to travellers before OTB Group's payment.
The pandemic constituted unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances, justifying holiday cancellations. Ryanair's offers of refunds created liability, regardless of the website access dispute. Causation was established, and vouchers were not considered valid discharges of liability.
Declaratory relief refused.
The judgment itself sufficiently clarifies the legal principles; declaratory relief is not necessary for justice in this specific case or for future similar litigation.
Similar Cases
Claire Smyth v British Airways PLC & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2173 (KB)
Rosemary Sherman & Anor v Reader Offers Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 412
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking, R (on the application of) v The Financial Conduct Authority
[2023] EWHC 1616 (Admin)
David Hammon & Ors v University College London
[2024] EWHC 1744 (KB)