The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by SGS Ireland Limited and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, set aside a High Court extension of time, and dismissed DEKRA Eireann Teoranta’s application for review of a public contract award.
The dispute followed a competition to establish and operate a roadworthiness testing system for private cars in Ireland. The Minister approved the award to SGS on 23 November 1998, and DEKRA was told the next day that it had not been selected. The contract was signed on 15 December.
DEKRA raised concerns about SGS’s re-test fee, the proposed locations of test centres, and an alleged conflict of interest involving consultants to the tender process. It gave the Minister formal notice of its intention to seek review on 14 December. DEKRA later issued its application on 25 March 1999, seeking declarations that the award and rejection of its tender breached procurement rules, as well as damages.
SGS applied to strike out the proceedings as late. The High Court found that DEKRA had not explained its delay after the Minister cancelled a proposed meeting in a letter dated 5 January 1999. However, the judge extended the deadline, concluding that the balance of prejudice favoured allowing the case to proceed.
In the Supreme Court, Fennelly J held that the Minister’s decision was made on 24 November and that the grounds for review first arose around 15 December. The application was therefore ten days outside the three-month limit. The Court also held that the rule allowed an extension where justified, but that an applicant must explain and justify delay. The absence of prejudice to the opposing parties could not, by itself, amount to good reason.
The Court said DEKRA knew its grounds and available remedies by mid-December and had not shown good reason for failing to start proceedings shortly after the 5 January letter. It described public procurement decisions as especially suited to a strict approach to deadlines because they concern commercial decisions that require certainty. The judgment did not decide DEKRA’s underlying allegations about the tender process; it dismissed the review application on the time-limit issue.