The Supreme Court has refused Dekra Eireann Teoranta’s application for judicial review of the award of Ireland’s national car-testing contract to SGS Ireland Limited, ruling that Dekra did not bring proceedings at the earliest opportunity and gave no good reason to extend the time limit.
In a judgment delivered on 4 April 2003, Denham J allowed appeals by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and SGS. The Court set aside a High Court order extending time and refused Dekra’s application for judicial review. The appeal concerned the deadline for bringing the challenge, not the merits of Dekra’s allegations about the tender process.
The Minister had notified Dekra on 24 November 1998 that the contract would be awarded to SGS. Dekra’s lawyers wrote on 14 December saying they intended to seek an injunction to restrain the award. The contract was announced on 15 December. Dekra began judicial review proceedings on 25 March 1999.
Under Order 84A, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, an application to review a public contract decision had to be made at the earliest opportunity and, in any event, within three months after the grounds first arose, unless the court found good reason to extend the period. Denham J said the rule reflected the requirement under European law for public procurement reviews to be dealt with rapidly.
The Court agreed with the High Court that a judge could extend the deadline even where the earliest opportunity to apply arose within the three-month period. It also upheld the requirement that an applicant seeking an extension show reasons that explain the delay and provide a justifiable excuse.
But Denham J concluded that Dekra had not met that test. The High Court had identified an unexplained six-week gap after a meeting was cancelled in January 1999, followed by renewed correspondence in February and March. The Supreme Court agreed that Dekra had explained only part of its delay and had provided no good reason for an extension.
The judgment noted that delay in challenging a public contract could affect the parties and the public interest. However, the Court said the decision in this appeal turned on the reasons for delay. It did not decide whether the tender award was unlawful, and its refusal of judicial review ended Dekra’s challenge in these proceedings.