High Court: (i) refuses to grant an order of judicial review challenging a decision to grant a marketing authorisation in respect of a veterinary medicinal product, and dismisses the proceedings in their entirety, on the grounds that: (a) the three month time-limit in which to bring judicial review should be calculated from the date of the ad hoc posting of the decision to grant the marketing authorisation on the respondent’s website; (b) the requisite information which is required to be published was made available when posted on the respondent's website and consequently this is when time began to run, not when the respondent provided a substantive response; (c) an applicant for judicial review must comply with the time-limits and engaging in correspondence with the respondent did not justify the applicants failure to make the application for leave within time; (d) the applicant did not require an analysis of a sample of the generic product as it was in a position to formulate a detailed statement of grounds in advance of the expiration of the three month period from the information already provided; (e) the two letters sent by the respondent on 6 March 2019 did not represent fresh decisions for the purposes of the calculation of the time-limit; and (f) the applicant failed to demonstrate good and sufficient reasons for the grant of an extension of time for the bringing of the proceedings; and (ii) makes an order directing that the applicant pays the costs of the respondent and the notice party.
Judicial review- applicant sought to challenge the decision of the respondent to grant a marketing authorisation in respect of a veterinary medicinal product – the notice party in the proceedings obtained a marketing authorisation of a “generic” of a product produced by the applicant – application for judicial review was made 5 months after the granting of the marketing authorisation - whether the proceedings were issued within the three month time-limit – Order 84, Rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether the applicant was justified in deferring the institution of proceedings until such time as it secured a sample of the product on the open market and arranged to have same analyse – whether a subsequent communication by the respondent which was to the effect that nothing raised by the applicant in correspondence provided a basis for the respondent to “withdraw” the marketing authorisation represented a fresh decision which reset the clock for the purposes of the three month time-limit – whether an extension of time should be granted - application refused.