Latest news with #PaulGallagher
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Irish hotels to join 'unprecedented' legal action against Booking.com
More than 900 Irish hotels have joined a landmark legal action against online travel agency over what they say were inflated rates of commission imposed for two decades. Joining with hotels across Europe, the group is seeking 'substantial financial compensation' from following a judgment from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last September, which found that the platform's so-called parity clauses breached EU competition law. This judgement has binding effect across all EU members states. It is estimated that over 900 Irish hotels and guesthouses are eligible to join this legal action, having been negatively impacted by use of anti-competitive parity clauses that were in effect from 2004 to 2024, the Irish Hotels Federation (IHF) has said. These clauses placed hotels and their customers at a significant competitive disadvantage by suppressing price competition between and other online platforms, IHF added, which resulted in hotels being charged inflated commission rates. The legal action will also argue that the clauses restricted hotels from offering better prices or availability on their own websites, limiting direct sales and autonomy. "Under the general principles of European competition law, hotels in Ireland and across Europe are now entitled to claim compensation from for the financial losses suffered," the IHF said. "Affected hotels may be eligible to recover a significant portion of commissions paid to in any period from 2004 to 2024 plus interest." Paul Gallagher, chief executive of the IHF said: "This is an unprecedented legal action which the Irish Hotels Federation is supporting on behalf of members, seeking to obtain full compensation for hotels affected by anti-competitive practices. "The platform's parity clauses have been a major issue for Irish hotels going back twenty years, resulting in significant financial harm due to the inflated levels of commissions charged. "We see this as an important opportunity to send a strong message to online booking platforms that unfair business practices will not go unchallenged.' The collective legal action is being supported by the European hospitality association and over 25 national hotel associations across Europe. It is being brought before the Amsterdam District Court in the Netherlands, where BV is headquartered. In addition to the Irish Hotels Federation, the action is supported by national hotel associations from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland.
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
IHF to join legal action against Booking.com
The Irish Hotels Federation has announced it is joining with hotels from across Europe to support a landmark collective legal action against over its restrictions against hotels offering lower rates on their websites or on rival sites. It follows a judgment last September from the Court of Justice of the European Union indicating that parity clauses, which were contractual terms that prevented hotels from offering lower prices or better availability through other channels, violated EU competition rules. These parity clauses were inserted into contracts between online booking sites and hotels, and the practice triggered complaints by competitors and scrutiny from regulators across Europe concerned about fewer choices for consumers. Hotels are now seeking substantial financial compensation for damages resulting from what they claim were inflated commission rates charged by The collective legal action is being supported by the European hospitality association (HOTREC) as well as more than 25 national hotel associations across Europe. It is being brought before the Amsterdam District Court in the Netherlands, where is headquartered. The IHF estimates that over 900 Irish hotels and guesthouses are eligible to join this legal action, having been negatively impacted by use of anti-competitive parity clauses that were in effect from 2004 to 2024. The IHF said these clauses "placed hotels and their customers at a significant competitive disadvantage by suppressing price competition between and other online platforms" and that "this resulted in hotels being charged inflated levels of commissions". The clauses also restricted hotels from offering better prices or availability on their own websites, limiting direct sales and autonomy. Under EU competition law, affected hotels may be eligible to recover a significant portion of commissions paid to the platform between 2004 to 2024, in addition to interest. IHF Chief Executive Paul Gallagher described the legal action as "unprecedented". He added that the parity clauses "have been a major issue for Irish hotels going back 20 years, resulting in significant financial harm due to the inflated levels of commissions charged. "We see this as an important opportunity to send a strong message to online booking platforms that unfair business practices will not go unchallenged." In its judgment last year, the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the EU said there was no evidence to justify the parity clauses. "It has not been established that price parity clauses, whether wide or narrow, first, are objectively necessary for the implementation of that main operation and, second, are proportionate to the objective pursued by it," judges said. They said the restrictions may reduce competition between various hotel reservation platforms, force out small platforms and new entrants and do not appear to be necessary to ensure economic viability. However, the court also said the clauses could not be considered anti-competitive under EU competition laws. At the time, Booking Holdings (which owns the brand) expressed disappointment with the ruling. The company said it the parity clauses "were necessary and proportionate to the relationship between accommodation partners and and that operates in a competitive market". The IHF is in communication with all affected hotels and guesthouses in Ireland in relation to the next steps for joining the collective legal action. The case is being led and handled by the same competition lawyers, litigators and competition economists who worked on the case that led to the ECJ's judgment. In addition to the IHF, the action is supported by national hotel associations from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland.
Irish Independent
3 days ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
Nearly 1,000 Irish hotels and guesthouses can seek damages from Booking.com in pricing row
Last year, the European Court of Justice ruled that so-called parity clauses imposed by between 2006 and 2024 prevented hotels from offering lower prices or better availability through other channels and that they violated EU competition rules. These clauses led to additional commissions, suppressed direct bookings and distorted online market competition. which is headquartered in Amsterdam, had argued that such clauses were required to prevent consumers from being able to search for their hotels on its website, but then make their reservations on a hotel's website if the price was cheaper there. If the reservations were not made via it couldn't charge a fee for its intermediary service, while hotels effectively still advertised over its platform. Now the Irish Hotels Federation (IHF) has joined hotels across Europe in support of a collective legal action against 'Hotels are seeking substantial financial compensation for damages resulting from inflated commission rates charged by the platform,' the IHF notes. It estimates that 900 hotels and guesthouses in Ireland are eligible to join the legal action. The IHF is already in contact with all those venues it believes were affected by the practice. The collective legal action is being supported by the European hospitality association Hotrec and more than 25 national hotel associations across Europe, said the IHF. It added: 'Under the general principles of European competition law, hotels in Ireland and across Europe are now entitled to claim compensation from for the financial losses suffered. 'Affected hotels may be eligible to recover a significant portion of commissions paid to in any period from 2004 to 2024 plus interest.' Paul Gallagher, the chief executive of the Irish Hotels Federation, said the legal action being taken in Amsterdam against is 'unprecedented'. 'The platform's parity clauses have been a major issue for Irish hotels going back 20 years, resulting in significant financial harm due to the inflated levels of commissions charged,' he said 'We see this as an important opportunity to send a strong message to online booking platforms that unfair business practices will not go unchallenged.'
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Barne Estate case: Oral contract generates mountain of paperwork in court
An oral contract is not worth the paper it is written on, the film mogul Samuel Goldwyn once observed. The oral contract that ended in the alleged sale of the Barne Estate in Co Tipperary to the billionaire businessman John Magnier has generated a veritable mountain of paperwork. Magnier and family are suing Barne Estate owner Richard Thomson-Moore and others over the purported sale on the evening of August 22nd, 2023 of the 751-acre estate in Co Tipperary. There were boxes piled up on the seats of a crowded Court 11 and stacks of blue-grey boxes bearing the name of Magnier's solicitors Arthur Cox for which there was no room in the court. READ MORE After lunch Mr Justice Max Barrett acknowledged that he is going to need a bigger courtroom and ordered that the boxes be removed to let people sit down. Magnier's counsel Paul Gallagher led the court patiently through page after page of written evidence – more than 500 pages in total. Among the WhatsApp messages he read was one from Alex Thomson-Moore, the sister of Richard Thomson-Moore, who wrote: 'One of us needs to be writing a diary and turning this into a Sunday night TV thriller.' Tolstoy's War and Peace, more like. Counsel for the Barne Estate Martin Heyden interjected to say there had been an 'extraordinarily disproportionate' level of demand for documents in the case from Magnier's side and the process was costing a 'staggering amount of money'. [ 'Gargantuan' data search ongoing in case over alleged €15 million sale of Barne estate to businessman John Magnier Opens in new window ] The star witness, John Magnier, gave evidence just after 3pm. 'This is my first day here ever,' he added with a pause when asked how often he had ended up in court over a deal like this. He has amassed a huge fortune through his Coolmore bloodstock operation and much of Co Tipperary. He crossed swords with Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson and won. Yet, aside from the odd horse racing interview about his Coolmore prodigies, he rarely, if ever, speaks in public about his dealings. He has made his fortune while remaining a mystery. He spoke quietly and deliberately, aside from once when he got irritated and handed Heyden a copy of his statement only to demand it back again later. The Barne Estate was adjoining two farms that he owned and he was keen to purchase it. He went to visit it on July 7th, 2023 and noticed something odd. The Thomson-Moores were growing potatoes, which is 'hard on land'. When he inquired he was told that the Thomson-Moores were always 'strapped for cash' and had found a cash customer for the potatoes. 'That struck a chord with me,' he said. On the evening of August 22nd, Thomson-Moore, his wife, and auctioneer John Stokes arrived to the Coolmore House. Stokes demanded €18 million for the Barne Estate. 'That led me to believe that they were not serious about doing a deal. I was taken aback by it,' said Magnier. 'Between the jigs and reels and going back and forth,' he added, they finally settled on a figure of €15 million. Stokes and the Thomson-Moores adjourned to another room and then came back. 'John [Stokes] put out his hand, and said, 'John, we have a deal.'' It wasn't subject to anything, they all shook hands, everybody was happy and he thought he had a deal, Magnier remembered. He later gave the Thomson-Moores €50,000 in cash for three reasons: firstly, for allowing him to till the farm; secondly, because they were under financial pressure; and thirdly, because they were resisting a counter-offer from US-based businessman Maurice Regan. [ John Magnier confirms he gave 'strapped for cash' estate owners €50,000 in cash in two envelopes Opens in new window ] Magnier knew when the money was returned on September 11th, 2023 that the deal was in trouble. He wanted to resolve the issue by peaceful means and upped his offer to more than €16 million and €500,000 in a trust for the Thomson-Moores' disabled son. It was rejected. 'We were left with no choice but to launch proceedings,' he said. He spoke with Stokes on October 6th. 'I asked him what was going on. 'John, there is one word for it – greed.''
Irish Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Defamation case a cynical attempt by Gerry Adams to ‘launder' his reputation, BBC barrister tells trial
The defamation case taken by Gerry Adams against the BBC is a cynical attempt to launder a reputation that he was in the Provisional IRA and sat on its army counsel, a barrister has told the High Court. Paul Gallagher SC, for the BBC, made the remarks in his closing address to the jury in the former Sinn Féin leader's action. Mr Adams claims a BBC Spotlight programme and a related article published in 2016 defamed him by falsely accusing him of sanctioning British agent Denis Donaldson's killing at a cottage in Glenties, Co Donegal, in 2006. Mr Adams's lawyers argue his reputation is that of a 'peacemaker', and the allegation represents an 'unjustified attack' on his reputation. He insists he had no involvement with the death for which dissident republicans claimed responsibility in 2009. READ MORE The BBC denies it defamed Mr Adams. Mr Gallagher on Thursday told the jury the case was about Mr Adams's reputation, to be considered in deciding if the BBC acted fairly and reasonably in publishing the allegation, and – if the jury finds Mr Adams was defamed – assessing damages to be awarded. The BBC argues the publication was fair and reasonable and in the public interest, a defence against a defamation action outlined in the Defamation Act 2009. This defence falls under a constitutional protection of free speech, and the jury's decision may have consequences for freedom of expression, Mr Gallagher said. The broadcaster also says that the Spotlight programme and related article did not mean the BBC said Mr Adams was responsible for sanctioning the murder of Mr Donaldson, and that the claim was presented as an allegation. Mr Gallagher said that the case was a cynical attempt by Mr Adams to 'launder' his reputation. Counsel said that Mr Adams is attempting to say that his reputation is different to what he effectively acknowledged in evidence, that people have repeatedly said he was a member of the IRA and its army council. 'You don't have to decide if he was in that position, this is about reputation,' he said. Mr Gallagher said that if you have a reputation of being in the IRA and on its army council – as, he said, Mr Adams does – that is the reputation you have. 'It's not just a label, it is a reality,' he said. 'Somebody can't shed that reputation and come into court and give evidence suggesting that it's not there, and present a picture of events that just ignores that reality,' he added. Mr Gallagher said that the statements in the Spotlight programme were presented as an allegation, and should not be taken to mean – as Mr Adams pleads – that the BBC said he sanctioned the murder of Mr Donaldson. He said the words cannot be taken in isolation, but rather in the context of the programme. He said there cannot be a situation where people in the media are afraid to speak, because of the consequence of being sued. Mr Gallagher reiterated journalist Jennifer O'Leary's evidence that she had multiple sources corroborating the allegation against Mr Adams. He said the defence's assertion that it was based on a single sources was 'completely wrong'. Mr Gallagher argued there was a strong public interest in the story. He said it was not a 'tittle-tattle story' of disputable public interest, and asked how the BBC could not have published the allegation. He said the story was motivated by good faith. 'This was done not to make an allegation against somebody for the sake of it,' he said.
