The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by CHC Ireland DAC over alleged changes to the contract awarded to Bristow Ireland Limited to provide the Irish Coast Guard Aviation Service after CHC’s contract expires in June 2025.
In a judgment delivered on 15 April 2024, Mr Justice Max Barrett found that CHC had provided no credible evidence that the Minister for Transport had decided to modify the new contract or had entered into a modified contract. The Minister had not received a proposal setting out the alleged changes, the judge said.
CHC argued that the contract had been or might be modified in areas including the proposed Shannon site, required authorisations, transfer of personnel and alternative training. Its case relied on an affidavit describing understandings, assumptions and beliefs about Bristow’s plans and the contract. The judge said that evidence did not show any action or statement by the Minister agreeing to or tacitly approving a change.
The Minister’s evidence, given by Ms Cullen, was that the department knew Bristow was expected to propose a change of site for a new development at Shannon, but had not seen the proposal or learned its scope. No proposal had been received concerning authorisations, personnel transfer or alternative training. The contract also contained a change control procedure, and the court had no evidence that it would not be followed.
The judge said the court could not decide whether hypothetical contract changes were unlawful when they had not been proposed, much less agreed. He also considered whether CHC should be allowed to test the evidence or whether striking out would improperly limit its right to litigate. He concluded there was no evidential conflict requiring a hearing or cross-examination: CHC’s claim rested on argument, assumptions, hearsay and speculation.
Allowing the Minister’s application under Order 19, rule 28(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the judge held that the proceedings were bound to fail and struck them out. He said he would also have struck them out as having no reasonable chance of success. He did not consider whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.