Challenge to 2011 award of ‘Eircode’ contract was out of time

Plaintiff’s claim is for breach of public procurement law - challenge to award of a contract in a public tender for Eircode services - also claims concerning conspiracy, breach of competition law, breach of state aid rules and interference with the conclusion of contracts – out of time under Remedies Regulations – also in the alternative the Court would have struck them out as being out of time under O.84A Rules of the Superior Courts - two Defendants - Department of the Environment, Climate, and Communications – Court noted that the Minister was the proper Defendant - second Defendant is the company who won the tender award - seek orders striking out the claim – statute barred and brought out of time - tender process - took place in 2011 - Eircode – Plaintiff argues about the rules of the tender - pre-qualification questionnaire - requirement that company has €40m of turnover – Plaintiff sought to have the tender process terminated - sent a Solicitor’s letter to the Department in 2011 – argued that PQQ precluded Plaintiff company from bidding due to the financial turnover limit - three operators passed the PQQ stage - Plaintiff did not tender - contract was awarded to the Second Defendant company in 2013 - contract was for ten years - contract was for the development, maintenance and operation of the national postcode system - important to the State - time limits for bringing legal proceedings in public procurement - SI No. 50 of 2007 EC (Award of Contracts by Utility Undertakings) Regulations 2007 - SI 131/2010 - Regulation 7(2) of the Remedies Regulations – proceedings must be brought within 30 calendar days after the applicant was ‘notified of the decision, or knew or ought to have known of the infringement alleged in the application’ - O.84A, r.4(2) - time limit can be extended - Plaintiff made a complaint about the tender to the European Commission in 2012 – High Court found that the proceedings were commenced ‘very considerably out of time’ – Court found that claims concerning conspiracy, breach of competition law, breach of state aid rules, and interference with the conclusion of contracts were ‘vague and inadequately particularised’ - connected with and derivative to the public procurement claim - also out of time - challenge should have been brought around February 2011 - Court consider this is correct time frame - plenary summons issued over a decade later - Plaintiff claims that it only became aware in June 2018 that an alleged decision had been made in 2013 to allow the contract to be used for services other than post – Court found that even if this was accepted, claim still out of time and action ought to have been brought around July 2018 - not commenced until September 2022 – no explanation - proceedings out of time – also outside the three-month time limit that arises under O.84 RSC - no application made under O.84A RSC for an extension of time - no basis for granting any extension –ancillary claims are inextricably connected with and derivative to the public procurement claim - entirety of the proceedings fail as being completely out of time – Court made an order dismissing the proceedings.