Danninger v Bus Atha Cliath [2007] IEHC 29 (23 February 2007)

Danninger v Bus Atha Cliath [2007] IEHC 29 (23 February 2007)

The contract in question was a public works contract, not a public works concession contract, as the contractor did not assume the economic risk of operating the public service but was paid for construction. The use of a 'best and final offer' system was not unlawful provided it was conducted transparently and equally among all tenderers, as occurred here. The applicant was not entitled to relief as the process was lawful and, in any event, delay and acquiescence would have disentitled it to relief.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 29
Parties
Applicant: Danninger; Respondent: Bus Átha Cliath; Notice Party: Deepdrill Developments Limited trading as O’Dwyer Leisure Group and Bennett (Construction) Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Works Contracts, Public Works Concession Contracts, Tender Procedures, Best and Final Offer System, Delay and Acquiescence in Judicial Review
Public Procurement European Union Law Administrative Law Public Works Contracts Public Works Concession Contracts Tender Procedures Best and Final Offer System Delay and Acquiescence in Judicial Review

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danninger

Applicant

Bus Átha Cliath

Respondent

Deepdrill Developments Limited trading as O’Dwyer Leisure Group and Bennett (Construction) Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was a public works contract or a public works concession contract under EU law
  2. 2 Whether the use of a 'best and final offer' system in the tender process was lawful under the relevant directives
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was disentitled to relief due to delay and acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

The contract in question was a public works contract, not a public works concession contract, as the contractor did not assume the economic risk of operating the public service but was paid for construction. The use of a 'best and final offer' system was not unlawful provided it was conducted transparently and equally among all tenderers, as occurred here. The applicant was not entitled to relief as the process was lawful and, in any event, delay and acquiescence would have disentitled it to relief.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order overturning the contract award
  • No relief granted to the applicant