Ryanair has apologised to a High Court judge over a second letter wrongly informing the Minister for Transport the judge had publicly criticised him over delays in setting up a panel to hear appeals against proposed new charges at Dublin Airport.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly had received an unreserved apology last month from Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary over an earlier letter from Mr O'Leary also misrepresenting the judge.
Today, Mr Justice Kelly expressed serious concern about the second letter, written by Ryanair's head of legal affairs, Juliusz Komorek, which repeated the misrepresentation.
When Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, said Mr Komorek's letter of March 12th last merely "referred back" to the letter by Mr O'Leary to the Minister of February 25th, that argument was rejected by the judge and counsel for the Dublin Aviation Authority.
Cian Ferriter, for the DAA, said the letter was part of Ryanair's "gross misconduct" of its legal proceedings over the proposed new charges and the court was entitled to take that into account in deciding whether to dismiss the proceedings now.
There was a "deeply ingrained culture" of "casual and rampant" disrespect for the court process and for anyone who gets in Ryanair's way, counsel said. The attitude was "if you are not with Ryanair, you are corrupt, incompetent, a failure" and in the pocket of the Minister and others.
After Mr Justice Kelly pursued the matter of the second letter, disclosed to the court by Ryanair itself following the hearing involving Mr O'Leary on March 26th last, Mr Hayden apoplogised on behalf of Ryanair over Mr Komorek's letter but denied the judge's suggestion he had to be "goaded" into the apology.
Mr O'Leary had on March 26th apologised in court over the "lie" in his own letter to Transport Minister Noel Dempsey alleging the judge publicly criticised the Minister over "inexcusable" delays setting up an appeal panel against the Commission for Aviation Regulation's decision fixing the maximum charges the DAA may levy at Dublin Airport for the five years up to 2014. The Minister had told Mr O'Leary in a letter of January 10th he would be setting up a panel.
Today, the judge heard preliminary arguments to dismiss Ryanair's application for leave to bring a judicial review challenge to the CAR decision and reserved his ruling.
Both the CAR and DAA argued Ryanair should be refused leave because it had itself said the appeal panel could address its grievances with the CAR decision more speedily and more cost effectively. If the judicial review proceeded, the legal costs of the three parties could reach some €3 million, Ryanair has said.
The CAR and DAA also argued Ryanair's grounds for judicial review all related to the merits of the decision when judicial review can only address whether there was illegality of unfairness in how a decision was reached and could not address merits.
Michael Collins SC, for CAR, said Ryanair's grounds were "full of generalised assertions which looked like the contents page of a judicial review handbook".
Both Mr Collins and Mr Ferriter also argued Ryanair's "misconduct" of the proceedings was a factor the court should take into account in exercising its discretion whether to grant leave. Mr Collins further argued Ryanair had presented incomplete evidence to the court relating to the CAR decision.
Rejecting all those arguments, Mr Hayden said Ryanair, while favouring an appeal, was also entitled to pursue judicial review. One of Ryanair's difficulties was the appeal panel's decision was not binding on the CAR who had also refused to agree to a request from Ryanair to extend the two month time limit for judicial review until the appeal was decided, he said.
It was not Ryanair's fault the relevant law provided for an open-ended appeal process while stipulating a shorter time frame for judicial review, counsel said. Ryanair's correspondence with the Minister was not conduct relevant to this application for leave, he added.
