The High Court has refused an interlocutory injunction sought by O’Kelly Brothers Civil Engineering Company Limited to stop Cork City Council and Ncoll Construction Limited from carrying out a contract to demolish 66 homes in Knocknaheeny, Cork.
The application was made within judicial review proceedings challenging the contract award. The court had granted leave for the judicial review in January 2013. Mr Justice Birmingham’s judgment, delivered on 22 February 2013, dealt only with the request to suspend the contract pending the case; it did not determine the underlying challenge.
The council estimated the contract, covering demolition and related work, at about €500,000. Five companies were invited to tender. O’Kelly Brothers said it submitted a complete tender and that its price was the second lowest. The council said the envelope marked “pricing document” was empty and that the document was not elsewhere in the submission. It treated the tender as incomplete. The judge said this was a live and significant factual dispute that could not be resolved at this stage.
The applicant also argued that the contract could attract cross-border interest and that a standstill period should have applied. The judge found a good arguable case on that point. He also found a fair issue to be tried concerning whether complete tender documents had been submitted. Other complaints included the council’s approach to advertising, notification and its reasons for treating the tender as unsuccessful.
The court nevertheless concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy if the applicant ultimately succeeded. In weighing the competing interests, the judge gave significant weight to the public interest in completing the demolition promptly. The 66 homes were unoccupied and boarded up, and the judgment referred to an arson incident at one house and concerns about anti-social behaviour. The judge also noted that the contract had already been awarded and work had begun, and that the injunction application came after the stated practical completion date.
The injunction was refused because the balance of convenience was clearly against granting it. The ruling allowed the contractor to continue the work while the judicial review challenge remained unresolved; it did not decide whether the contract award was lawful.