BAM PPP PGGM Infrastructure Cooperatie UA -v- National Treasury Management Agency & anor [2015] IECA 246 (06 November 2015)

BAM PPP PGGM Infrastructure Cooperatie UA -v- National Treasury Management Agency & anor [2015] IECA 246 (06 November 2015)

Discovery must be confined to issues defined in pleadings; general discovery relating to underlying dispute is impermissible. The High Court erred by ordering discovery beyond pleaded issues and by not restricting discovery to matters genuinely in dispute. Only factual disputes relevant to pleaded issues justify discovery.

Citation
[2015] IECA 246
Parties
Applicant/respondent: BAM PPP PGGM Infrastructure Cooperatie UA; Respondent/appellant: National Treasury Management Agency; Respondent/appellant: Minister for Education and Skills
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed and High Court order varied
Legal Topics
Discovery, Tender Acceptance, Manifest Error, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Transparency, Equal Treatment, Non Discrimination
Public Procurement Administrative Law Discovery Tender Acceptance Manifest Error Judicial Review Proportionality Transparency +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BAM PPP PGGM Infrastructure Cooperatie UA

Applicant/respondent

National Treasury Management Agency

Respondent/appellant

Minister for Education and Skills

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether NTMA had discretion under the Invitation to Negotiate to accept late tenders
  2. 2 Whether NTMA misdirected itself in law or made manifest error in exercising discretion
  3. 3 Whether NTMA's reasons for accepting late tenders infringed principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment, transparency, and proportionality

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery must be confined to issues defined in pleadings; general discovery relating to underlying dispute is impermissible. The High Court erred by ordering discovery beyond pleaded issues and by not restricting discovery to matters genuinely in dispute. Only factual disputes relevant to pleaded issues justify discovery.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed and High Court order varied

Orders

  • High Court discovery order varied to restrict discovery to categories not in dispute as set out; restrictions sought by NTMA in respect of Kajima and time of receipt not imposed; discovery confined to pleaded issues