Emovis Operations Ireland Ltd v National Roads Authority

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Robert Haughton
• Judgment Date: 20 June 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 362
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 285 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 20 June 2018

[2018] IEHC 362

THE HIGH COURT

Haughton Robert J.

[2017 No. 285 J.R.]

IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2004/18/EC AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AWARD OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CONTRACTS) REGULATIONS 2006 (S.I. 329 OF 2006)

AND IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/665/EEC AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CONTRACTS) (REVIEW PROCEDURES) REGULATIONS 2010 (S.I. 130 OF 2010) AS AMENDED

BETWEEN

EMOVIS OPERATIONS IRELAND LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND

NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY

(OPERATING UNDER THE NAME TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND)

RESPONDENT

AND

TURAS

NOTICE PARTY

Discovery – Categories of discovery – Documents – Applicant seeking categories of discovery from the respondent – Whether the High Court should make orders for discovery

Facts: The applicant, Emovis Operations Ireland Ltd, applied to the High Court seeking categories of discovery from the respondent, National Roads Authority. The respondent also sought discovery from the applicant.

Held by Haughton J that the categories of discovery sought by the applicant from the respondent by letter dated 3 October, 2017, as modified in subsequent correspondence, the Notice of Motion filed on 12 October, 2017, and at hearing, would be refused. In lieu of the discovery sought the following categories of discovery to be made by the respondent were ordered by Haughton J: (a) all documents created by or issued to the Evaluation Committee evidencing the use, in the course of the Evaluation Committee's evaluation of the applicant's tender, of any employee data supplied by the applicant to the respondent in response to or in connection with the request for information "RFI 25" and the calculation of the figures of 187 FTE, 155 FTE and 116 FTE referred to in the Notification sent to the applicant; (b) all documents created by or issued to the Evaluation Committee evidencing the Evaluation Committee's evaluation of the applicant's intended resources for printing and postage service under Operations Plan – Criterion B which refer to arrangements under the existing contract; (c) all documents created by or issued to the Evaluation Committee evidencing the Evaluation Committee's evaluation of the applicant's intended financial management processes under Operations Plan – Criterion A which referred to the processes under the existing contract; (d) all documents created by or issued to the Evaluation Committee evidencing the Evaluation Committee's evaluation of the applicant's sufficiency of resources under Operations Plan – Criterion B in relation to multi—point tolling and/or additional toll points.

Haughton J held that, in relation to the discovery sought by the respondent from the applicant, by reference to the Schedule to the Notice of Motion dated 12 October, 2017, and in lieu thereof, the court would make the following orders for discovery: (a) all documents created on or after 15 July 2015 evidencing the information provided by the applicant to the respondent about the staffing of the existing operation; (b) all documents evidencing the applicant's interpretation of the purpose of RFI0004, RFI0018 and RFI0025; (c) all documents evidencing and/or recording the discussions and/or content of the dialogue meeting of 21 June 2016, including, without limitation, minutes of that meeting and/or subsequent documents referring to the discussions and/or content of that meeting; (d) all documents evidencing and/or recording the discussions and/or content of the Debrief Meeting, including (without limitation) minutes of the Debrief Meeting and/or subsequent documents referring to the discussions and/or content of the said Debrief Meeting.

Applications granted in part.

Ruling of Mr. Justice Robert Haughton delivered this 20th day of June, 2018.

Discovery by the Respondent

1. The categories of discovery sought by the applicant from the respondent by letter dated 3 October, 2017, as modified in subsequent correspondence, the Notice of Motion filed on 12 October, 2017, and at hearing, will be refused and reasons for such refusal will be given at a later date at which time the order refusing same will be made and perfected.

2. In lieu of the discovery sought the following categories of discovery to be made by the Respondent are hereby ordered:

...