U.S. Department of Justice’s Post

After following this story for a few months now, there has been an interesting and welcomed judgment (Judicial Review) from O'Donnell J in the High Court regarding the grant of a stay on the implementation of the Passenger Air Traffic Movement (PATM) seat cap which was determined by the IAA and sought to limit total pax through T1 & T2 of Dublin Airport to 25.2 million during the Summer 2025 period. It seems to me that this judgment was a complicated balancing act between regulatory schemes, planning law, EU law, property law and the adverse and irreparable financial, operational and reputational harms that the refusal of granting a stay would have on all applicants. The applicant airlines are entitled (under Art. 8 of the Slots Regulation) to receive slots that they have historically been allocated in a previous period if certain conditions are met - this entitlement seems to have been characterised as a property right. It was well argued that the imposition of the PATM seat cap constituted unlawful interference with the applicant's rights under property law. Additionally, there is no mechanism under Art. 8 to recover lost slots. A combination of Art. 8, 11 and the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 excludes any compensation claims for any limitation, restriction or elimination on airlines as a result of a cap or other measure. The general domestic jurisprudence also restricts the granting of damages against public bodies (IAA) for ultra vires decisions. The Air Transport Association of America (A4A) submitted the argument that the PATM seat cap is in breach of obligations under the US-EU Air Traffic Agreement and the Canada-EU Air Traffic Agreement by "unilaterally placing limits on the volume of traffic, frequency and regularity of service provided by airlines flying between the US or Canada and Dublin Airport." One of the DAA's concerns was that a stay on the PATM seat cap would require the DAA to operate Dublin Airport in breach of the conditions on planning permission (32mppa conditions) imposed by An Bord Pleanála. They highlighted the public interest in giving effect to valid requirements of planning law in the State. O'Donnell J employed a multi-pronged test at para. 59 after considering those set out in both the Irish and EU courts. He concluded that "the potential consequences of a potential breach of the planning conditions does not outweigh the highly probable and very serious adverse consequences of failing to grant a stay in these proceedings." He continued, "those consequences extend beyond the immediate serious effects on the applicants, but include serious disruption for the public and potential harmful effects for the broader economy." The High Court granted a stay on the PATM seat cap implemented by the IAA in their S25 Decision. The Slot Allocation List is due to be published on 7 November by ACL. Aer Lingus & Ors v Irish Aviation Authority [2024] IEHC 624

In our latest webinar, Simon Ostiadel navigates the often-overlooked nuances of indemnity in motor claims. This comprehensive guide clarifies the legalities and provides practical insights for handling claims effectively. Watch here: https://bit.ly/49PqX0j

With its recent decision, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appellate court to conclude that the Defend Trade Secrets Act applies to conduct outside the United States. Because of the Act’s expansive reach, trade secret owners should consider whether they can still bring a claim in a U.S. court under the DTSA. You can learn more about the case in this alert — the first in a two-part series about the matter — by Bryan Washburn and Randall Kahnke.

Ever wondered how a seemingly simple contract needs adjustments when crossing the Atlantic? Our team has extensive experience in drafting, localizing, and negotiating contracts for both EU and US companies. Did you know about these key differences? - Warranty Disclaimers: Stronger disclaimers are generally favored in the US. - Force Majeure Clauses: "Acts of God" might not translate directly in the EU. - Liquidated Damages: These are more common and enforceable in the US. Share your experiences in the comments! 🤔 #TransatlanticLaw #Contracts #InternationalBusiness

Curious about the new Texas Business Courts? MWM's Ilana Zelener and Nicole Paige explain how the system is set to bring clarity and efficiency to business disputes statewide. Find out more: https://lnkd.in/gXnfnj8e

You should definitely have a read of our article on force majeure clauses and the implications of non-contractual performance following the Supreme Court's decision in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV. #Kuits #ManchesterLawyers #CommercialLaw #ForceMajeure #CommercialContracts

I really need to write a couple of articles on some issues in the transportation industry... I need to address fright guards (negative reports on carriers in Carrier411) and the broker transparency law (49 CFR 371.3c). More to come!

All parties to the proceedings were represented by leading and junior counsel from Monckton Chambers. Tim Ward KC, Ben Lask KC, Ligia Osepciu appeared for Royal Mail and British Telecom. Clíodhna Kelleher appeared for the Claimants at first instance. Daniel Beard KC, Daisy Mackersie and James Bourke appeared for DAF. Read here: https://lnkd.in/eXBQi6Tj #MoncktonMemebrs #competitionlaw #commerciallaw

Jackson Lewis’ Restrictive Covenants, Trade Secrets and Unfair Competition group Co-Leaders Clifford Atlas and Erik Winton and attorney Jennifer Burgess discuss the FTC's planned ban on non-competition agreements affecting only the plaintiffs in the lawsuit who challenged the FTC's authority. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/ghTJ_j3i #EmploymentLaw

The Supreme Court has today given a significant judgment clarifying the obligations of a party that wishes to rely on a force majeure clause. It establishes that, contrary to the Court of Appeal's decision in the case, the obligation to use reasonable endeavours to overcome or avoid the effect of a force majeure event (which will generally be implied into a force majeure clause if it is not expressly stated) does not require a party to accept anything other than performance in accordance with the strict terms of the contract. Chris Bushell, Rachel Lidgate, Emma Deas, Sarah Hawes and I consider the decision in this latest post on our Litigation Notes blog. #hsfdisputes #disputeresolution #forcemajeure