The people versus Ryanair — spoiler alert: airline wins

“Ryanair is Ryanair,” Judge Dermot Dempsey tells the handful of people still in Swords District Court by the time the small claims hearings get under way.

Because of its proximity to the airport, this court room hears many travel related cases and, perhaps because Ryanair is Ryanair, the airline features often. In this last sitting before Christmas it is scheduled to make three appearances.

One — the Ryanair solicitor tells the court early in the day — has been settled with a payment winging its way to the claimant, but the other two will proceed as planned.

Before they can the court has other business to attend to and quite a lot of it.

I saw a video of my ex-girlfriend on a porn site but I don’t think she knows

---

Pat Leahy: If Brexit Britain was an inflamed appendix, Eurosceptic France would be a malignant cancer

---

Anne Friel on her late husband playwright Brian: ‘I was crazy about him. He was everything’

---

Limerick judge Tom O’Donnell ends career on grim note with controversial ruling in Crotty case

---

Unlike Small Claims Court (SCC) sittings in the Four Courts, the hearings in Swords on the appointed days are not exclusively for those with consumer concerns and they share the day with civil, criminal and family law cases.

As it starts, it is clear Judge Dempsey is not a man who suffers fools gladly. He is not necessarily grouchy but when people come before him without the necessary documentation or evidential material he is most displeased and does not hide that fact.

A woman sitting in the body of the court clutching a white court notification identifying her as an SCC claimant whispers a quiet exhortation to the heavens when she hears how the judge is addressing the legal professionals and the defendants that come before him.

“Jaysus,” she says to The Irish Times. “Is he going to be like that with me?” A guard charged with keeping the peace shushes us.

As the morning continues the woman becomes increasingly fretful, her black Converse beating a nervous rhythm on the courtroom floor.

Eventually, all the other business is done and the Small Claims Court sitting starts.

First up it is the people versus Ryanair. Or at least it is a person versus Ryanair.

The case is being taken by a man who does not speak English so he has hired - at his own expense - an interpreter.

His claim is for €50 and the judge says that hiring an interpreter for a case involving such a small amount “seems to make perfect economic sense”.

There is a chance his arch sarcasm goes over the claimant’s head.

The judge seeks details of the case and the airline’s solicitor comes forward to explain that the claimant “maintains that Ryanair the well-known low-cost carrier has different classes of comfort on their planes”.

It turns out that the claimant had bought two seats together on what he thought was a particular aircraft that he hoped would give him extra legroom. But the airline changed the aircraft type ahead of his journey and the seats he booked were no longer available so he received a partial refund and was sat elsewhere on the plane.

He did not get his extra legroom and has taken the case because he reckons he had paid for superior seats and was effectively downgraded in breach of European aviation rules.

Ryanair’s solicitor makes the point that the regulations being cited only apply to airlines with different classes of carriage.

The judge interjects. “Ryanair is Ryanair,” he tells the court, reminding it that there is no distinction between the front and back of their planes.

He asks the man for the basis of the claim before quickly running out of patience. “I’m not spending my afternoon listening to a frivolous and vexatious claim,” he says sternly as he dismisses the case, ordering the claimant to pay costs of €300.

Next up is the young woman who’d been getting increasingly nervous throughout the morning.

She tells the judge she paid a company just under €6,000 in advance for new floors and skirting boards but says they did a terrible job so she wants €2,000 back.

The judge asks for evidence of the “bad workmanship” and she produces a pile of photographs.

He initially waves them away. “You’re saying this job was terrible, have you got a report to that effect?”

She does not.

“I can’t look at these photos, they’ll mean nothing to me,” he says a touch crossly.

He relents. “Show me the photographs that you’re so mad to show me.”

He looks through them and agrees that it “looks bad, even to me”.

He tells a director of the company the work “looks pretty shoddy” and in response, the director accepts there are some “snags”.

The judge wonders why the claimant had to pay the full cost upfront and is told it is “company policy” to which the judge says it is “sharp practice”.

The company had previously agreed to repay the woman half the €2,000 she wanted and the director does not appear to be budging.

The judge says he wants an independent report on the job done and wants the company to cover the cost.

He asks the claimant if she’d accept €1,500 and she says she would. The floor man doesn’t want to move — unlike his floors — but the judge says the report will cost between €300 and €400 and he’ll have to come back again in January.

A deal is done and the woman is paid her money there and then.

‘It is deceitful,’ the claimant responds. ‘I have booked hundreds of flights and this is new to me’

—  Claimant

Ryanair’s solicitor is back on his feet. This time over a claim worth €80 that has been lodged by Barry Neary.

He and his wife were due to fly to Portugal in the summer of 2022 but the day before the holiday she took ill.

The couple had already checked in but the claimant logged on to the app to see if they could reschedule. The cost was high so they decided to travel and he closed down the app.

The following day, their boarding passes allowed them as far as the boarding gate where they were told that they’d been checked out of the flight so had to pay a further €80 for fresh boarding cards.

Mr Neary says he’s a frequent flyer with Ryanair and insists he had not been alerted that he would be checked out of his flight if he looked at alternative options.

The Ryanair legal representative has come armed with a thick booklet containing details of Mr Neary’s app usage on the day in question and screen grabs of a “continue” tab as well as details of the site’s Frequently Asked Questions.

“You can’t make any decision about changing flights unless you press continue and by pressing continue that unchecks you in,” the solicitor explains. “By looking for an alternative you unchecked yourself and you are told that if you do that you will have to check in again.”

This is news to the judge and claimant with the former saying, “this is very educational for me”.

The solicitor produces the Ryanair FAQs that explain that if you have already checked in try to change your flight their system automatically checks you out and you will need to check back in if you decide to proceed with the original flight.

“It is as clear as a pike staff,” the solicitor says.

“It is deceitful,” the claimant responds. “I have booked hundreds of flights and this is new to me.”

“It is new to me too,” the judge agrees but he says the case serves as a reminder for people to be clear on the terms and conditions. “I wouldn’t have known this either but I am dismissing your complaint,” he says to Mr Neary. “And I do understand how you feel.”

Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone

• Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
• Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here