No error in decision to refuse discovery of tender documents in case regarding tender for coast guard duties

Appeal regarding discovery application by the Appellant company – relates to the award of a contract for the provision of Irish Coastguard aviation services - public procurement contract process – a separate company won the contract - proceedings generally challenge the validity of that award – the Appellant company had been the incumbent provider of the services before the tender – discovery related appeal - Appellant company alleges that the Minister provided the company that won the tender with confidential information pertaining to Appellant company – including “alternative training” – claims a breach of regulation - alleges that the manner in which the evaluation of the final tenders was conducted was deficient and unlawful – alleges that the Minister wrongly took account of political influence in awarding the contract - Court relied on case law which says that in order for the Court of Appeal to displace the order of the High Court in a discovery matter the appellant should be in a position to establish that a real injustice will be done unless the High Court order is set aside – Court of Appeal commented that it was clear that the High Court decided this application squarely on the Word Perfect principles without any suggestion being advanced by the Appellant company that these were no longer to be relied upon – Court noted that Appellant company purported to remedy the shortcomings in their evidence identified by the High Court Judge in a further affidavit sworn after the High Court gave its decision - O. 86A, r. 4(b) - Court of Appeal found that reliance on this rule was misplaced as it clearly refers to circumstances in which it is appropriate to update the appellate court concerning events post-dating the judgment in the High Court – it does not apply to matters that had arisen before the judgment of the High Court – Court found that Appellant company should have put evidence before the High Court and it cannot seek to do so now de novo - should have made a prior application to the Court of Appeal for leave to adduce additional evidence – Court disregarded subsequent evidence - proposal by the High Court to allow it apply for further discovery - Appellant Company’s said may also need access to company who won tender’s documents – Court found that this did not satisfy the basic requirements of relevance and necessity at this stage – The Court commented that the High Court Judge was not satisfied that Appellant company had demonstrated the necessity for the Minister to disclose all documents related to the winner’s final tender - Court found that the order made in the High Court was well within the discretion of the Judge - no injustice demonstrated by the Appellant company - Appellant company has been given liberty to apply for further discovery – appeal dismissed.