Belfast International Airport Limited v Aer Lingus Limited
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Weatherup J |
| Judgment Date | 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] NIQB 80 |
| Date | 25 June 2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2015] NIQB 80 Ref: WEA9721
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 25/06/2015
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (COMMERCIAL)
________
BELFAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED
Plaintiff
-v-
AER LINGUS LIMITED
Defendant
__________________________
WEATHERUP J
[1] The plaintiff airport claims damages for breach of contract by the defendant
airline in relation to the operation by the defendant of a base at the airport.
Mr Hanna QC and Mr McMahon appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and
Mr Shaw QC and Mr Colmer appeared on behalf of the defendant.
The plaintiff’s pleaded case.
[2] I propose to set out how the pleadings developed before turning to the
evidence. The Statement of Claim pleaded that the plaintiff owns and operates
Belfast International Airport (“BIA”) and the defendant operated a base from BIA
from December 2007 to October 2012.
[3] The plaintiff’s claim arises from the unilateral withdrawal by the defendant
from BIA. The plaintiff claims damages for the breach by the defendant of a ten year
contract concluded in 2007 pursuant to which the defendant was to operate aircraft
from a base at BIA on a charging structure which set lower rates for the early years
and higher rates for the later years.
[4] Alternatively, if, as the defendant contended, there was no ten year contract
for the defendant to operate the base, the plaintiff claims, for the years of the
2
defendant’s operations at BIA, payment of charges based on the plaintiff’s standard
terms and conditions and/or for restitution of £900,000 paid in launch support for
the defendant.
[5] BIA standard terms and conditions were issued to operators and were stated
to apply unless the plaintiff and the operator agreed different terms and conditions.
The plaintiff’s terms and conditions were sent to the defendant on 18 March 2005
and set out provisions that included a passenger charge of £10.10 per departing
passenger for domestic flights and £12.70 per departing passenger for international
flights. Certain discounts were applicable and those discounts might be withdrawn
in the event that the operator failed to operate the services provided for in the
contract for the period of the contract. Similar standard terms and conditions
applied year by year by BIA were sent to the defendant during its years of operation
at the airport.
[6] On 5 February 2007 John Doran, Managing Director of BIA and Uel Hoey,
Business Development Director, met representatives to the defendant, Brian Dodd,
Head of Finance and Economic Planning and Cora Burke, to discuss the possibility
of the defendant commencing operations based at BIA. On 12 March 2007 the
plaintiff sent to the defendant a letter under the heading ‘Proposal in relation to a
three aircraft base’. The letter included a proposed charging structure on a sliding
scale based on a ten year agreement commencing 1 January 2008. The proposed
charges were £4 per departing passenger for domestic flights and £3 for international
flights in the first year with increases on a yearly basis up to £8 per departing
passenger for domestic flights and £7 for international flights.
[7] On 22 May 2007, at a meeting between representatives of the plaintiff and the
defendant, the defendant stated that they would require launch support from the
plaintiff as part of any agreement. An updated proposal incorporating launch
support was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15 June 2007. On 27 June a
further meeting between representatives led to a letter of 28 June 2007 containing a
revised proposal. The letter was stated to be ‘Subject to contract and Board
approval’. The letter contains what the plaintiff contends to be the terms and
conditions of the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant.
[8] Following receipt of the letter of 28 June 2007, Stephen Kavanagh, the
defendant’s Planning Director, telephoned Mr Dornan of the plaintiff in early July
2007 to indicate that the defendant was in a position to commence operations at BIA.
A meeting took place on 26 July between representatives of the plaintiff and the
defendant to complete arrangements in respect of the marketing and the public
announcement and the commencement of operations by the defendant at BIA.
[9] The plaintiff relies on the letter of 28 June 2007 as containing the terms and
conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff’s offer having been accepted by Mr
Kavanagh on behalf of the defendant in the telephone call of early July 2007.
To continue reading
Request your trial