The High Court has refused a motion to dismiss Newbridge Tyre and Battery Co Limited’s judicial review of a Garda towing and garaging contract as being out of time.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 21 June 2018, addressed only the respondent’s preliminary objection under the 30-day limit in the Remedies Regulations. It did not determine whether the contract was lawfully awarded.
Newbridge, which had been providing the service, was unsuccessful in the competition. The contract was awarded to Corcoran Autobody Works Limited, which appeared as notice party and supported the motion to dismiss.
The Garda notified the three tenderers on 27 October 2017 that Corcoran was the preferred bidder. Newbridge then raised concerns about Corcoran’s planning permissions, waste permits, proposed sites and capacity. In correspondence, the State said Kildare County Council had described a restriction on operating hours in a registration certificate as a clerical error to be corrected. It later acknowledged that the certificate limited storage to six crashed or immobilised vehicles.
Justice Baker considered when Newbridge had enough information to know it had reasonable grounds to challenge the award. She found that identifying Corcoran as preferred bidder, by itself, had not given Newbridge sufficient knowledge of the alleged irregularities. The questions raised in the correspondence were matters of substance and some information, including details of the proposed locations, could not readily be obtained from public records.
The judge concluded that Newbridge had sufficient information by 23 November 2017, after receiving two letters of clarification. As the judicial review application issued on 8 December, she held it was within the 30-day period. She also found that the focused correspondence was not a device to delay proceedings and that Newbridge had moved with expedition.
Corcoran argued that it had permits and authorisations in place and was prepared to perform the contract, and that delay had caused prejudice. The judge was not satisfied that real prejudice resulted from the short delay, observing that the effects described arose from the judicial review itself.
The motion to dismiss was refused. Because the court found the application was not out of time, Justice Baker did not consider Newbridge’s separate request to amend its grounds to seek an extension of time. The substantive procurement challenge remained undecided in this judgment.