Owens v Kildare County Council (Approved) [2020] IEHC 435 (03 September 2020)

Owens v Kildare County Council (Approved) [2020] IEHC 435 (03 September 2020)

The applicant failed to submit a Quality Submission and revised Pricing Document as required by the tender instructions and after being given an extension and warning. The respondent's decision to eliminate the applicant was within its discretion, consistent with procurement regulations, and not manifestly erroneous. No procedural unfairness, discrimination, or breach of duty to provide reasons was established.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 435
Parties
Applicant: Robert Owens; Respondent: Kildare County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tender Process Compliance, Fair Procedures, Ultra Vires, Provision of Reasons, Discrimination in Procurement, External Review Rights
Public Procurement Administrative Law European Union Law Tender Process Compliance Fair Procedures Ultra Vires Provision of Reasons Discrimination in Procurement +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Owens

Applicant

Kildare County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's elimination of the applicant from the tender process was ultra vires and procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision as required by procurement regulations
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was discriminated against or denied fair procedures compared to other tenderers

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to submit a Quality Submission and revised Pricing Document as required by the tender instructions and after being given an extension and warning. The respondent's decision to eliminate the applicant was within its discretion, consistent with procurement regulations, and not manifestly erroneous. No procedural unfairness, discrimination, or breach of duty to provide reasons was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review refused
  • No relief granted to applicant