Transports Tyrelsen v Ryanair Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hedigan
• Judgment Date: 04 May 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 226
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 3691 S/2009
• Date: 04 May 2012

[2012] IEHC 226

THE HIGH COURT

3691 S/2009

Transportstyrelsen v Ryanair Ltd

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

TRANSPORTSTYRELSEN

PLAINTIFF

V.

RYANAIR LIMITED

DEFENDANT

EEC REG 2320/2002

PETER BUCHANAN LTD & MACHARG v MCVEY 1954 IR 89

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SYDNEY v BULL 1909 1 KB 7

BANK OF IRELAND v MEENEGHAN & CMRS OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE 1994 3 IR 111 1995 1 ILRM 96 1996 ITR 58 1994/8/2144

CAMPBELL INTERNATIONAL TRADING HOUSE LTD & NATURE PURE LTD v VAN AART & NATUR PUR GMBH 1992 2 IR 305

CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION & THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL & COMMERCIAL MATTERS 27.9.1968 ART 18

CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION & THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL & COMMERCIAL MATTERS 27.9.1968 ART 16

INTERMETAL GROUP LTD & TRANS-WORLD (STEEL) LTD v WORSLADE TRADING LTD 1998 2 IR 1

HARRODS (BUENOS AIRES) LTD (NO 2), IN RE 1992 CH 72 1991 3 WLR 397 1991 4 AER 348

MCCARTHY v PILLAY & PILLAYS GENERAL HOSPITAL LTD T/A CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL 2003 1 IR 592 2003 2 ILRM 284 2003/40/9509

SPIELBERG v ROWLEY & ORS UNREP FINLAY GEOGHEGAN 26.11.2004 2004/47/10870

EEC REG 44/2001 ART 1

BYRNE v CONROY 1998 3 IR 1

CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY ACT SFS 2004:1100 S11 (SWEDEN)

CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY ACT SFS 2004:1100 S13 (SWEDEN)

CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY ACT SFS 2004:1100 S10 (SWEDEN)

HUNTINGTON v ATTRILL 1893 AC 150

EEC REG 44/2001 ART 18

COLLINS & ORS DICEY MORRIS & COLLINS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 14ED 2006 PARA 130

COLLINS & ORS DICEY MORRIS & COLLINS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 14ED 2006 PARA 131

COLLINS & ORS DICEY MORRIS & COLLINS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 14ED 2006 PARA 132

COLLINS & ORS DICEY MORRIS & COLLINS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 14ED 2006 PARA 133

COLLINS & ORS DICEY MORRIS & COLLINS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 14ED 2006 PARA 134

MICHAEL MACNAMARA & SON v OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP HATTERAS 1931 IR 73

CONFLICT OF LAWS

Jurisdiction

Foreign revenue - Public or administrative debt - Estoppel - Unconditional appearance - Steps in proceedings - Stay - Forum non conveniens - Whether sums sought constituting non-voluntary pecuniary sums paid to state agency by members of public - Whether Swedish airport security charges constituting taxes or public law debts - Whether charges collected for benefit of Swedish state - Whether defendant entitled to contest jurisdiction of Irish courts - Whether entry of unconditional appearance preventing defendant contesting jurisdiction - Whether steps taken in proceedings estopping defendant from contesting jurisdiction - Whether steps taken in proceedings rendered it unfair to stay proceedings on basis of forum non conveniens - Whether trial of proceedings in Ireland presented insurmountable difficulty - Intermetal Group v Worslade Trading Ltd [1998] 2 IR 1; Campbell International Trading House Ltd v Van Aart [1992] 2 IR 305 and Conroy v Byrne [1998] 3 IR 1 applied - Michael McNamara & Son v Owners of the Steamship Hatteras [1931] IR 73 approved - Huntington v Attrill [1893] AC 150; Municipal County of Sydney v Bull [1908] 1 KB 7; Peter Buchanan Ltd v McVey [1950] IR 89; In re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72; Bank of Ireland v Meenaghan [1994] 3 IR 111; McCarthy v Pilay [2003] 1 IR 592 and Spielberg v Rowley [2004] IEHC 384, (Unrep, Finlay Geoghegan J, 26/11/2004) considered - Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968, arts 16 & 18 - Regulation 44/2001/EEC, art 1 & 18 - Civil Aviation Security Act SFS 2004:1100 (Sweden), ss 10, 11 & 13 - Application to dismiss or stay proceedings refused (2009/3691S - Hedigan J - 4/5/2012) [2012] IEHC 226

Transportstyrelsen v Ryanair Ltd

Facts the plaintiff was a foreign transport authority which sought to recover monies levied on airlines, including the defendant. The charges were introduced by Swedish Legislation which was enacted in compliance with Regulation (EC) No. 2320/2002 of the European Parliament. The defendant brought a motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs claim on the grounds that it was seeking to recover a foreign revenue and/or public law and/or administrative debt from it and that the Irish Courts had no jurisdiction to determine that claim. In the alternative, if it was determined that the court did have jurisdiction to determine this claim, the defendant sought to stay the proceedings pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens as it claimed there was another more appropriate jurisdiction for these proceedings to be determined i.e. Sweden. The plaintiff submitted that the proceedings were at such an advanced stage that it would be contrary to the general principle requiring the expeditious disposal of litigation to allow it to be referred to another jurisdiction where fresh proceedings would have to be commenced. It was submitted that the defendant was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Court at a late stage.

Held by Mr. Justice Hogan in refusing to dismiss the proceedings and refusing to place a stay on proceedings, 1, that an Irish Court would not enforce a revenue debt of another country but that the charges that were sought to be recovered were not taxes or public law debts as the funds raised were not kept by the Swedish state but were disbursed to Swedish airports to defray the cost of security controls necessitated by the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 2320/2002 of the European Parliament.Buchanan Limited v. McVey [1950] IR 89 at 102-103 considered.

2. That in cases which fell outside the scope of the Brussels Convention, the general principle was that the entry of an unconditional appearance by a defendant was one of the steps which should be regarded as a submission to the jurisdiction of the Court by that defendant. In addition to entering an unconditional appearance to the summary summons, the defendant had filed an affidavit in response to a motion for liberty to enter final judgment, consented to the matter being sent to plenary hearing; raised particulars, sought and obtained an order for further and better particulars and filed a counterclaim which made it clear that it had engaged with and accepted the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts. In those circumstances the defendant was precluded from seeking to object to the jurisdiction of the Court.

3. That the test to be applied in determiningforum non conveniens was "the broad principle of justice for both parties." The trial of these proceedings in Ireland would not present any insurmountable difficulty as the defendant was a company registered in Ireland and had its head office in Ireland. The court was competent to receive such evidence of foreign law as may be required from suitably qualified experts and to reach a determination on the claim. That justice required that a stay should not be granted on the basis of forum non conveniens. Intermetal Group v. Worslade Trading Limited [1998] 2 IR 1 considered.

Mr. Justice Hedigan

1 The plaintiff is the Swedish Transport Agency its registered office is located at 0581 Norrkoping, Sweden. The defendant airline's registered office is located at Corporate Head Office, Dublin Airport, in the County of Dublin.

2 (i) An Order dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the plaintiff is seeking to recover a foreign revenue and/or public law and/or administrative debt from the defendant;

3 (ii) An Order dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the plaintiff is seeking to recover a foreign revenue and/or public law and /or administrative debt

4 (iii) In the alternative an Order staying the within proceedings on the basis of the doctrine offorum non conveniens.

5 2 3.1 The plaintiff is a Swedish state entity, which was established in 2009 pursuant to a Swedish Regulation. The Swedish word Transportstyrelsen translates into English as the Swedish Transport Agency. The plaintiff replaced an entity known as Luftfartsstyrelsen which translates as the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority ("the Authority"). The Authority came into existence on 1^st January, 2005. The plaintiff's claim in these proceedings is for what it describes as security charges, which were introduced in Sweden as a result of extra security measures at airports due to the 9/11 terrorist attack. The charges were introduced by the Civil Aviation Security Act SFS 2004: 1100 (referred to as the "CAS") which was enacted in Sweden on the 18^th November 2004. This Act was enacted in compliance with Regulation (EC) No. 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 16^th December 2002.

6 3 3.2 The charges were to be paid by passengers and were intended to be revenue neutral as far as airlines were concerned. The airlines were to collect the charges from passengers when they were booking their flight and pay them on to the plaintiff. The charges were to be imposed on all passengers departing Swedish airports from 1^st January, 2005 regardless of when they booked. Ryanair however was notified of the amount of the new charges in December 2004. It complains that at that stage many of its customers had already booked their flights for travel after 1^st January, 2005.

7 4 3.3 In these proceedings issued on the 3^rd day of September 2009 the plaintiff is claiming the charges for passengers who booked and paid for their flights before the charges were introduced but who were travelling after 1^st January, 2005. The plaintiffs claim is for SEK 10,193,883.50 (approximately €1,150,476.05) The defendant has charged all its passengers who booked after 1^st January, 2005 in respect of these charges. The defendant entered an appearance on the 18^th day of September 2009.

8 5 3.4 The defendant has now brought an application dated the 1^st September 2011 in which it seeks to have the proceedings dismissed. It is seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it is seeking to recover a foreign revenue and/or public law and/or administrative debt...