The High Court has refused Dublin Airport Authority’s request to lift a suspension preventing it from entering a site-services contract at Dublin Airport with Maybin Support Services (Ireland) Limited. The suspension will remain in place at this stage, pending determination of OCS One Complete Solution Limited’s challenge to the contract award.
OCS brought proceedings seeking review of the Authority’s decision to award the contract to Maybin. It alleges deficiencies in the procurement process. Those allegations were not determined in this judgment. The Authority applied for an order lifting or discharging any suspension that prevented it from concluding the contract, arguing in part that OCS had not provided an undertaking in damages.
Justice Barrett held that OCS’s review application triggered an automatic suspension under the European Communities (Award of Contracts by Utility Undertakings) (Review Procedures) Regulations 2010. He rejected OCS’s argument that the suspension could not be lifted before the underlying review was fully decided. The court has power to lift it earlier, but the Authority, as the party seeking that relief, had to satisfy the court that the consequences of the interim order sought were justified.
The judge applied the balancing test in Regulation 9(4): the court may consider the likely consequences for affected interests and the public interest, and refuse an interim order where its negative consequences could exceed its benefits. He rejected the Authority’s submission that the usual interlocutory-injunction principles, including a requirement for an undertaking in damages, governed this application. The absence of such an undertaking was not a precondition to maintaining the suspension, although an offered undertaking could be considered in the balance.
In weighing the consequences, the court noted that lifting the suspension could lead to OCS staff transferring to Maybin, possible redundancies, and a loss of expertise or competitiveness for OCS. The judge also considered the possibility that damages might not adequately compensate OCS and the public interest in fair procurement and avoiding potentially duplicative payments from public funds. Keeping the suspension in place maintained the status quo while the review continued, though the court also noted that the current arrangement meant higher payments to OCS than the intended Maybin contract would require and could contribute to higher airport charges.
The judge made no finding on whether OCS’s procurement allegations were true. Concluding that the negative consequences of lifting the suspension outweighed the benefits of doing so at this time, he declined to make the order. The underlying challenge to the award was not decided in this judgment.