Martin Hayden

Martin Hayden

Martin has experience in relation to aviation issues concerning both wet and dry leasing, asset leasing including aircraft and aircraft financing. In addition, he has experience in relation to various aspects of aircraft acquisition to include issues now relating to the 737 Max.

Martin has a detailed and specialist knowledge of e-contracts in the context of the Aviation industry and regularly acts for the largest airline in Europe. He regularly acts for one of the largest Banks in Ireland and has also been heavily involved in financial litigation arising out of the economic collapse suffered in Ireland post-2008.

Martin has appeared on a number of occasions in relation to Aviation Law and related matters. In particular, he acted on behalf of a substantial European airline in relation to its challenge to Regulation 261 before the ECJ challenging (unsuccessfully) the proportionality and application of Regulation 261 in relation to airlines’ obligations to customers arising out of the Icelandic ash cloud and the resultant closure of European airspace.

Martin has also acted regularly in relation to challenges to the operation and assessment of charges by the Airport Regulator in relation to the operation of Dublin Airport. In this regard, he has been involved in a number of judicial review challenges regarding the rate of levy arising out of the operation of the regulated asset base.

Notable Cases

  • Ryanair v Billigfluege and Ryanair v On the Beach; [2010] IEHC 47, [2013] IEHC 124; Supreme Court ruling given on the 20th November 2014 (written judgment pending) – In relation to both of these cases, Martin acted as lead Counsel on behalf of Ryanair in which Ryanair was bringing applications for injunctions to restrain the commercial use of its website by comparison website operators within the EU. There have been a number of substantial hearings in which Ryanair has been successful in establishing that Ireland has jurisdiction to hear the substantive hearings in circumstances whereby pursuant to the Brussels Convention, the Defendants have sought to argue jurisdiction, locus and principally whether there is a cause of action. Applying in the main the concepts that had been developed in the US and Canada; the Irish High Court has now adopted the principals and concepts of contracting on the net in parallel with the US position.
  • Article 261 Ryanair case – Denise McDonagh v Ryanair; Case C-12/11 – Martin acted for Ryanair in relation to a reference to the European Court of Justice relating to the obligations imposed upon airlines under Regulation 261 flowing from the closing down of the European Airspace during the Icelandic volcanic eruption. Whilst unsuccessful in articulating the position that the only appropriate or proper and proportionate application of the Regulation necessitated a limitation on the level of care that airlines are obliged to provide; the Court of Justice articulated in its decision its concerns in relation to the potential disproportionate nature of the differential of treatment between transport modes i.e. that land and sea transporters had both temporal and financial limitations on the level of care that was required. This has resulted in a process whereby Regulation 261 is in the process of being amended to create a proportionate response and obligations for airlines.
  • Haughey v J&E Davy Stockbrokers, Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank and Bank of Ireland [2014] IEHC 206 – In this case, Martin acted on behalf of the Plaintiff who brought proceedings against Davy Stockbrokers who are the largest stockbrokers in Ireland in relation to their advices and services connected with the operation, use and liability for contracts for difference (CFDs) in relation to stock trading. This was one of the first cases in Ireland and in fact in the context of the existing English case law relating to articulating the full extent, liability and obligation of stockbrokers and whether fiduciary duties exist or there are special circumstances that may create a duty of care. In light of the financial collapse that has been the experience in Ireland since 2008, this is a significant and seminal case in the apportionment of obligation and liability for financial services advices. It involved the application of MiFiD, the stockbroking rules, obligations and trading in relation to CFDs with Cantor Fitzgerald and IG Markets. It ran for four weeks and ultimately resulted in a €2m award in favour of the Plaintiff together with costs.
Areas of Expertise
  • Aviation Law
  • Business Law
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Professional Misconduct & Disciplinary
  • Insolvency
  • International Law
  • Regulatory
Education and Memberships
  • Call and Inn: 2008 Middle Temple (non-practising)
  • Extraditions Lawyers Association
  • Duty Solicitor
  • The Law Society
  • Extradition Lawyers Association
Martin Hayden
Aviation Senior Counsel

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Never miss email updates in your inbox.