Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court, in the context of judicial review proceedings regarding the public procurement regime, rules that a challenge lodged against the decision of a statutory authority to award a public contract for services at an airport to a third party operates as an automatic freeze on the conclusion/finalisation of such a contract, owing to the proper implementation of an applicable European regulation.
Clarke J (nem diss): Judicial review - appeal - challenge to decision of respondent statutory authority to award public contract for services at Dublin Airport to notice party - public procurement procedure - whether current proceedings automatically precludes conclusion of intended contractual award for services to notice party - decision of High Court (Barrett J) preventing contract finalisation pending outcome of substantive proceedings - present court ruled on appeal - judgment solely for purposes of giving reasons - whether a challenge to awarding decision of public procurement procedure made outside 'standstill' period retains benefit of automatically freezing the conclusion of the contractual agreement - whether court has jurisdiction to permit conclusion of contract - European Union law - criteria for the exercise of jurisdiction to permit conclusion - notice to vary High Court order by challenging party on decision of jurisdiction granted - regulation does not provide jurisdiction to permit conclusion of contract prior to decision of substantive application for judicial review - legal framework - operative directives of the EU - interpretation of regulation - margin of appreciation - whether a separate application for an interlocutory order providing for the continuance of suspension period required - whether suspension automatic from wording of regulation - High Court correct in its interpretation of an 'automatic suspension' - remedies directive - definition of 'interim measures' - statutory regime - wording of 'interlocutory order' in context of regulation unclear and requires further urgent consideration - creation of automatic barrier to contract's conclusion by virtue of regulation in place - appeal by authority dismissed but notice to vary allowed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.