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.
Refusal of leave to add new ground to judicial review proceedings involving public procurement matters overturned
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court, in an appeal from High Court order refusing a motion to extend the grounds of judicial review proceedings to include new grounds based on 'capacity' and 'damages' concerning the respondents' decision to limit public procurement to a number of providers in a multi-supplier framework agreement for the purchase of printing equipment for various State bodies, allows appeal on capacity ground as appellant has shown a 'good reason' to include the issue, communicated its intention to add the ground at an early stage, and the public interest is served by allowing the amendment; appeal refused on 'damages' ground as it is entirely new and does not arise naturally or by implication out of existing proceedings and is unessential to disposal of matters concerned with the public interest.
Charlton J (nem diss): Judicial review - appeal from High Court order (Ó'Néill J) refusing to extend grounds - validity of decision to limit available range of suppliers in public procurement for State bodies - grounds relating to capacity and damages - contract for the purchase of printers on behalf of State bodies - public procurement regulations permit a 30-day period within which to challenge certain decisions - whether a 'good reason' for allowing amendment outside of time period - RSC - separate proceedings between parties under appeal to Supreme Court - capacity ground included in those proceedings - whether respondent had the capacity to set up or enter into a multi-supplier framework agreement - damages ground relates to the applicant's claim to recover monetary losses - capacity ground inadvertently left out of proceedings - correspondence with respondent ensued once error discovered asking for amendment to be permitted - requirement to show reasons which explained the delay and offered a justifiable excuse - overly strict interpretation by High Court - conduct of the parties and the public interest - lack of prejudice or delay if additional capacity point allowed - damages point not notified to respondents by letter and is entirely new - amendment in respect of capacity allowed while the new claim for damages is refused.
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.
