Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> OCS One Complete Solution Ltd -v- Dublin Airport Authority plc and another [2014] IESC 51 (31 July 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2014/S51.html
Cite as: [2014] IESC 51

[New search] [Help]

Judgment Title: OCS One Complete Solution Limited -v- Dublin Airport Authority plc and another

Neutral Citation: [2014] IESC 51

Supreme Court Record Number: 274/14 & 290/14

High Court Record Number: 2014 177JR & 2014 52 COM

Date of Delivery: 31/07/2014

Court: Supreme Court

Composition of Court: Clarke J., Laffoy J., Dunne J.

Judgment by: Ruling - Clarke J.

Status of Judgment: Approved


Judgments by	Link to Judgment	Result	Concurring
Clarke J.	Link		Laffoy J., Dunne J.

THE SUPREME COURT

[Appeal No: 274/14]

Clarke J.
Laffoy J.
Dunne J.

Between/

OCS One Complete Solutions Limited

Applicant/Respondent

and

Dublin Airport Authority plc

Respondent/Appellant

and

Maybin Support Services (Ireland) Limited t/a Momentum Support

Notice Party

Ruling of the Court delivered on the 31st July, 2014 by Mr. Justice Clarke

1. The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, is in a position to indicate its principal conclusions on the issues which arise on this appeal. A full judgment outlining the reasoning of the Court will be delivered in due course.

2. However, the Court has concluded that:-

(a) Once an application is made to the Court under the provisions of Article 8(1)(b) of the European Communities (Award of Contracts by Utility Undertakings) (Review Procedures) Regulations, 2010 ("the Regulations") seeking the review of a decision of a contracting entity to award a contract to a particular tenderer or candidate, the relevant contracting entity is precluded from concluding the contract in question under the provisions of Art. 8(2) of the Regulation notwithstanding the fact that the relevant application to the Court is initiated after the standstill period provided for in the Regulation has expired. Furthermore, it is unnecessary for the applicant to make a specific application by motion to the Court in order that such a preclusion come into effect. Rather the preclusion arises automatically on the bringing of the substantive application under Art.8(1)(b).

(b) The Regulation does not confer on the courts a jurisdiction to entertain an application by the contracting entity concerned to be permitted to conclude the relevant contract prior to the determination of the application for review;

(c) In those circumstances the question of the criteria which would apply on such an application, were one permitted to be made, does not arise; and

(d) It is also unnecessary and inappropriate to determine the issues which were debated on this appeal concerning the merits of the outcome of such an application on the facts of this case.

3. In those circumstances the appeal will, when the Court has an opportunity to deliver its full judgment, be dismissed and the notice to vary allowed.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010