The Court of Appeal dismissed Forum Connemara Limited’s appeal over the award of a public contract to deliver the Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) across County Galway.
The appeal concerned a High Court refusal to grant judicial review of the Galway County Local Community Development Committee’s decision not to award Forum Connemara the contract. The competition had two stages. Forum Connemara advanced to the second stage as one of five entities, but the contract was awarded to Galway Rural Development Company Limited.
The contract under challenge expired on 31 December 2017. A later contract, running from 1 January 2018 to 1 January 2023, was also awarded to Galway Rural Development Company. The respondent argued that the appeal had become moot. The Court of Appeal said that argument was compelling but did not decide the mootness issue, because it could resolve the appeal on other grounds.
The main issue was whether the respondent had authority to defend the judicial review proceedings. Forum Connemara argued that the committee had not separately authorised the defence and related procedural steps. The court noted that the High Court judge had considered the issue implicitly determined by an earlier ruling. The Court of Appeal said it saw no reason to disagree, but also addressed the issue on its merits.
The court found that defending proceedings was an executive function under the Local Government Act 2001. Galway County Council’s chief executive had delegated functions to Catherine McConnell, including authority to defend legal proceedings. The judgment said an order approved the appointment of counsel to defend the judicial review on the respondent’s behalf. The court concluded there was no substance to the argument that the respondent lacked authority to defend the case.
Forum Connemara also argued that the committee had given insufficient reasons for not awarding it the contract. The Court of Appeal noted that the High Court had found the contract fell within Annex IIB of an EU procurement directive, and that the respondent had provided specific reasons in its 2 March 2015 letter. The appellant had not appealed the High Court’s finding that those reasons went beyond the general requirement to give reasons. The Court of Appeal rejected this ground as well.
The appeal was dismissed. The court did not determine whether the appeal was moot.