Word Perfect Translation Services Ltd v The Commissioner of An Garda S�och�na

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Respondent on 18th February 2015 to award interpretation services to certain preferred bidders, excluding the Applicant. The Applicant initiated proceedings by originating notice of motion dated 19th March 2015. Subsequently, by Notice of Motion dated 24th June 2015, the Applicant sought leave to amend its Statement of Grounds to include additional claims relating to alleged illegal procurement practices by the Respondent following the expiration of a previous framework agreement on 31 August 2013. The Respondent opposed the application to amend. The matter was argued on 14th October 2015. The case concerns whether the Applicant may amend the grounds of challenge in the context of strict time limits imposed by the European Communities (Public Authorities’ Contracts) (Review Procedures) Regulations 2010 and Order 84A of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant has shown “good reasons” to justify amending the Statement of Grounds in a judicial review challenging the award of a public contract, particularly in light of statutory time limits and public interest considerations.
2. Whether the proposed amendments introduce new causes of action or challenges to different decisions beyond the original scope of the proceedings.
3. Whether amendments that would cause delay, prejudice to the Respondent or third parties, or significantly enlarge the case should be permitted in public procurement judicial reviews.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that it only became aware of certain alleged illegal direct awards to parties not included in the expired framework agreement following receipt of the Respondent’s affidavit dated 19th May 2015.
• The Applicant argued that the new information constituted a second ground of challenge concerning illegal awards made during the interim period post-expiry of the framework agreement.
• The Applicant submitted that the amendments do not introduce a new cause of action but further particularize an existing one, and that challenging related procurement decisions in separate proceedings would be uneconomical and inefficient.
• The Applicant asserted that the Respondent’s procurement practices since 31 August 2013 involved illegal direct awards and breaches of EU public procurement principles, including transparency and equal treatment.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent submitted that the affidavit of 19th May 2015 did not introduce new facts unknown to the Applicant and therefore did not justify amendments.
• The Respondent argued that the Applicant was seeking to challenge decisions other than the one under review, which was impermissible and would expand the scope of the proceedings, causing delay and prejudice.
• The Respondent maintained that the case concerning the decision of 18th February 2015 could be determined without the proposed amendments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the statutory framework requiring public contract review applications to be brought within 30 days and the discretion to permit amendments under Order 84A, Rule 8. The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents establishing that an applicant must show “good reasons” to justify amendments, especially where amendments introduce new grounds or cause delay.

The Court found that the Applicant was aware from the inception of proceedings that the Respondent continued procuring interpretation services after the framework agreement expired, including from some providers named in the amendments sought. The affidavit relied upon by the Applicant did not disclose new facts unknown previously but only corrected the Respondent’s earlier pleadings. Therefore, it did not constitute a good reason for amendment.

The Court emphasized the public interest in the swift disposal of public procurement litigation and the need to avoid undue delay or prejudice. It held that the proposed amendments concerning unnamed service providers introduced new claims and challenges outside the original decision, which would significantly enlarge the scope of proceedings and cause delay and expense.

The Court also noted that the Applicant had acquiesced in the interim procurement practices by providing services and not challenging them earlier. The refusal of interlocutory injunctions on grounds of delay further supported the conclusion that amendments were not justified.

Applying the principles from Keegan and Copymoore, the Court concluded that the Applicant failed to establish good reasons to permit any of the proposed amendments to the Statement of Grounds.

Holding and Implications

The Court refused the Applicant’s application for leave to amend the Statement of Grounds.

The direct effect is that the Applicant’s challenge remains confined to the original grounds relating to the decision of 18th February 2015 without the additional claims concerning alleged illegal procurement from unnamed service providers or expanded reliefs. No new precedent was established; the decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules and the requirement to show good reasons for amendments, particularly in public procurement judicial reviews where public interest in timely resolution is paramount.