Word Perfect Translation Services Ltd v Commissioner for an Garda Síochána

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian McGovern
• Judgment Date: 19 June 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 438
• Docket Number: [2015 No. 149 J.R]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 June 2015

[2015] IEHC 438

THE HIGH COURT

McGovern J.

[2015 No. 149 J.R]

IN THE MATTER OF THE REVIEW OF THE AWARD OF A PUBLIC CONTRACT PURSUANT TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (PUBLIC AUTHORITIES' CONTRACT) (REVIEW PROCEDURES) REGULATIONS 2010 AND

ORDER 84 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS, AS AMENDED

BETWEEN

WORD PERFECT TRANSLATION SERVICES LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

RESPONDENT

Government – Reg. 8 of the Remedies Regulations – Contract award decisions – Interlocutory injunction – Discrimination between potential tenderers

Facts: The applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent to award interpretation services to certain preferred bidders to the exclusion of the applicant and an interlocutory injunction in the interim thereby restraining the respondent from procuring the interpretation services other than on the basis of the provisions of the Department of Justice and Equality Framework Agreement. The applicant contended that the respondent had been making awards of contracts since the expiration of the Framework Agreement in 2013.

Mr. Justice Brian J. McGovern refused to grant an interlocutory injunction to the applicant. The Court applied the tests laid down for granting an interlocutory injunction in the Campus Oil case. The Court held that the injunctive relief sought was a kind of final remedy that would not be available under reg. 8 of the Remedies Regulations and there had been delay in bringing the present proceedings on behalf of the applicant as the illegality raised by the applicant had been in existence since 2013. The Court found that an injunction would not be a proper remedy for the decisions already taken and since the applicant was receiving some work from the respondent, the applicant at best could seek damages, if the applicant suffered any damages owing to the conduct of the respondent.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian McGovern delivered on the 19th day of June, 2015

1 In these proceedings the applicant seeks a judicial review of a decision made by the respondent to award interpretation services to certain preferred bidders to the exclusion of the respondent and for other ancillary relief. Pending the hearing of the judicial review an application has been made for an interlocutory injunction in the following terms:-

‘(i) An order restraining the respondent from procuring interpretation services on the basis of the framework for the provision of telephone interpretation, face to face interpretation and document translation services, which commenced on 1 February 2009 which expired on 31 August 2013;

(ii) An order restraining the respondent pending the determination of these proceedings and/or pending the re-tender of these services, the subject matter of the contract at issue in these proceedings, from procuring interpretation services other than on the basis of the provisions of the Department of Justice and Equality Framework Agreement for the Provision of Interpretation Services;

(iii) An order directing the respondent, when procuring interpretation services pending the determination of these proceedings and/or pending the re-tender of the services the subject matter of the contract at issue in these proceedings to procure such services under the Department of Justice and Equality's Framework Agreement for the Provision of Interpretation Services.’

2 A number of issues arise on the hearing of this application. The first is whether the Campus Oil principles which normally apply to applications for injunctive relief apply or whether the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the principles set out by Barrett J. in ...