Clare Civil Engineering Ltd. v. Mayo County Council [2004] IEHC 135 (9 July 2004)

Clare Civil Engineering Ltd. v. Mayo County Council [2004] IEHC 135 (9 July 2004)

The applicant's omission of rates for items 20 and 21 did not constitute zero rating justifying exclusion, as the amended Method of Measurement and Specification required these to be treated as 'items' without rates. The respondent's exclusion of the applicant's tender was a clearly established error, breaching the obligation to award the contract to the most economically advantageous tender and violating principles of equality and transparency.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 135
Parties
Applicant: Clare Civil Engineering Ltd.; Respondent: Mayo County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Tendering Process, Contract Award Criteria, Judicial Review Standards, Principles of Equality and Transparency
Public Procurement Administrative Law European Union Law Tendering Process Contract Award Criteria Judicial Review Standards Principles of Equality and Transparency

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clare Civil Engineering Ltd.

Applicant

Mayo County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lawfully excluded the applicant's tender under Article 14(a)(iv) of the Instructions to Tenderers
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's omission of rates for items 20 and 21 constituted zero rating justifying exclusion
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was obliged to correct the omission under Article 13 and seek applicant's agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's omission of rates for items 20 and 21 did not constitute zero rating justifying exclusion, as the amended Method of Measurement and Specification required these to be treated as 'items' without rates. The respondent's exclusion of the applicant's tender was a clearly established error, breaching the obligation to award the contract to the most economically advantageous tender and violating principles of equality and transparency.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Declaration that exclusion of applicant's tender was unlawful
  • Respondent to pay damages to applicant