Damages would not be adequate remedy in case concerning the award of a State contract

Public procurement – challenge to the award by the Minister for Public Expenditure of a contract for the supply of translation services to the State’s immigration services and the Legal Aid Board to another company known – Article 8A of the European Communities (Public Authorities’ Contracts Review Procedures) Regulations 2010 (S.I. No. 130 of 2010) – Order 84a of the Rules of the Superior Courts – appeal of High Court order lifting automatic stay provided by the Regulations on the execution of the contract award by the Minister pending the outcome of this challenge to that award – whether damages are an adequate remedy – reputational damage which Word Perfect would suffer if the contract award were to stand through the loss of specialist interpreters for rare languages and that this loss might even prove terminal to its business – earlier High Court authorities dealing with the adequacy of damages issue – what level of damages are recoverable in public procurement cases – what type of damages does Article 9(6) refer – whether Francovich damages constitute an adequate remedy in this context – Of Courts and Constitutions – Liber Amicorum in Honour of Nial Fennelly (ed. Bradley, Travers and Whelan) (Hart Publishing, 2014) – balance of convenience – damages are not an adequate remedy – appeal allowed.