Gillen & Anor v Inverclyde Council [2010] ScotCS CSOH_19 (03 March 2010)

Gillen & Anor v Inverclyde Council [2010] ScotCS CSOH_19 (03 March 2010)

The pursuers failed to satisfy the notification and time-bar pre-conditions under Regulation 32(4) of the 1993 Regulations. There is no sufficiently similar domestic comparator for a claim under the Regulations, so the principle of equivalence is not infringed. The 1993 Regulations are valid and the actions must be dismissed.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_19
Parties
Pursuer: Michael Gillen; Pursuer: Flosshaul Limited; Defender: Inverclyde Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Judicial Review / Damages / Preliminary Objection / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Actions dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Service Contracts Regulations 1993, Principle of Equivalence, Limitation Periods, Remedies for Breach of Procurement Rules
Public Procurement Administrative Law European Union Law Public Service Contracts Regulations 1993 Principle of Equivalence Limitation Periods Remedies for Breach of Procurement Rules

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Gillen

Pursuer

Flosshaul Limited

Pursuer

Inverclyde Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Judicial Review / Damages / Preliminary Objection / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers satisfied the pre-conditions for bringing a claim under Regulation 32 of the 1993 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the time-bar and notification requirements under Regulation 32(4) were met
  3. 3 Whether the 1993 Regulations infringe the EU principle of equivalence

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to satisfy the notification and time-bar pre-conditions under Regulation 32(4) of the 1993 Regulations. There is no sufficiently similar domestic comparator for a claim under the Regulations, so the principle of equivalence is not infringed. The 1993 Regulations are valid and the actions must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Actions dismissed

Orders

  • Claims of both pursuers dismissed for failure to satisfy Regulation 32(4) pre-conditions and no infringement of the principle of equivalence.