The High Court has dismissed proceedings brought by Loc8 Code Limited over the 2011 procurement process for Ireland’s national postcode system, finding that the case was brought well beyond the deadline for procurement challenges.
Mr Justice Max Barrett gave judgment on 20 December 2023. He held that the proceedings, issued in September 2022, were out of time under the EC (Award of Contracts by Utility Undertakings) (Review Procedures) Regulations 2010. He said that even if those regulations did not apply, the proceedings would also have been out of time under Order 84A of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Loc8 Code’s case concerned, among other matters, a €40 million turnover requirement in the pre-qualification questionnaire for the tender, and an alleged decision in 2013 to allow the postcode system to be used for purposes beyond post. The company alleged conspiracy and procurement-related wrongdoing by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, Capita Business Support Services Ireland Ltd trading as Eircode, and An Post. Those allegations were denied and were not tried or established in this application.
The judgment said a challenge to the questionnaire, published in January 2011, should have been brought within 30 days. Loc8 Code claimed it only learned in June 2018 of the alleged 2013 decision. The judge said that, even using June 2018 as the starting point, the 30-day period would have expired in July 2018, more than four years before proceedings began. He found no clear reason for the delay.
The court also considered the alternative three-month time limit under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. No application had been made to extend time under Order 84A, and the judge said there was no basis for granting an extension of the scale that would have been required.
The court’s decision was on the time limits. The judge described the conspiracy, competition-law and state-aid claims as connected to and derivative of the procurement challenge. He did not make findings establishing the alleged wrongdoing. Although defendants had sought dismissal or strike-out on other grounds, including pleading deficiencies, the operative order recorded in the judgment was dismissal because the proceedings were brought out of time under the 2010 Regulations. The judge said he would also have struck them out under Order 84A if the Regulations did not apply.