- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
BAM PPP PGGM Infrastructure Cooperatie U.A. v National Treasury Management Agency & anor
Factual and Procedural Background
This case concerns the tendering process for a contract to build part of a new university campus at a specific location. The Applicant commenced judicial review proceedings seeking, among other things, an order setting aside the decision of the Respondents to accept a late tender submitted by a consortium referred to as the Consortium. This challenge was brought under the European Communities (Public Authorities’ Contracts) (Review Procedures) Regulations 2010 (the ‘Principal Regulations’). As a consequence of the Applicant bringing this challenge, an automatic suspension arose by operation of law, preventing the Respondents from concluding the contract pending a decision on the challenge.
Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court had indicated that the Principal Regulations did not permit a court to lift such a suspension. However, new retroactive regulations (the ‘Amending Regulations’) were adopted, introducing an entitlement for a contracting authority to apply to the High Court for an order to lift an automatic suspension. This judgment follows such an application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Principal Regulations, as amended by the Amending Regulations, are compatible with the Directive of 2007 concerning the automatic prohibition on concluding contracts during review procedures.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its discretion to lift the automatic suspension preventing the Respondents from concluding the contract with the Consortium.
- Whether damages constitute an adequate remedy for the Applicant in the circumstances of the procurement challenge.
- Whether it would be appropriate to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents from entering into the contract if there were no automatic suspension.
- Whether the court should impose conditions on any order permitting the contract conclusion.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The Applicant contends that the Amended Regulations must be dis-applied as incompatible with the Directive of 2007 because the Directive requires that the automatic prohibition on concluding a contract remain until the determination of the proceedings.
- The Applicant argues that the Respondents’ acceptance of a late tender was unlawful and in breach of fundamental procurement principles.
- The Applicant claims damages would be an inadequate remedy due to reputational loss, diminished market position, and unquantifiable effects on associated companies and staff retention.
- The Applicant asserts that the prohibition on contract conclusion should not be lifted as it protects the integrity of the procurement process.
Respondents' Arguments
- The Respondents argue that the Directive of 2007 does not require an automatic prohibition on concluding a contract when the review concerns an interim decision rather than a contract award decision.
- The Respondents maintain that the Amending Regulations provide a lawful mechanism for lifting the automatic suspension and are compatible with EU law.
- The Respondents contend that damages would be an adequate remedy for the Applicant.
- The Respondents emphasize the public interest in proceeding with the project, including economic, social, and community benefits.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| OCS v. DAA [2015] IESC 6 | Principal Regulations did not permit lifting of automatic suspension on contract conclusion. | Identified as the issue addressed by the Amending Regulations, which provide for lifting suspension. |
| Campus Oil v. Minister for Industry (No. 2) [1983] I.R. 88 | Principles for interlocutory injunctions: fair question to be tried, adequacy of damages, balance of convenience. | Applied to assess whether injunction would be appropriate absent the automatic suspension. |
| Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for Environment [1987] I.R. 23 | Limits on damages for ultra vires acts requiring additional elements like malice or illegality. | Considered in evaluating whether damages are available to Applicant for alleged procurement breaches. |
| Glencar Exploration plc v. Mayo County Council (No. 2) [2002] 1 IR 84 | Conditions under which breach of statutory duty can ground damages claims. | Discussed regarding the potential for damages claims arising from procurement breaches. |
| Ward v. McMaster [1988] I.R. 337 | Context for claims based on reliance and statutory duty. | Referenced in analysis of damages availability. |
| Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 | Principles of liability for negligent misstatement. | Referenced in damages discussion related to reliance. |
| European Dynamics SA v. HM Treasury [2009] EWHC 3419 (TCC) | Damages as an adequate remedy in procurement cases. | Noted as supporting adequacy of damages. |
| Exel Europe v. University Hospitals [2010] EWHC 3332 (TCC) | Damages as an adequate remedy in procurement cases. | Noted as supporting adequacy of damages. |
| Letting International v. Newham LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 1522 | Damages not an adequate remedy in procurement breaches. | Noted as part of divergent authority on damages adequacy. |
| DWF LLP v. Secretary of State for Business, Education and Skills [2014] EWCA Civ 900 | Damages not an adequate remedy in procurement breaches. | Noted as part of divergent authority on damages adequacy. |
| Alstom Transport v. Eurostar International [2010] EWHC 2747 (Ch) | Damages inadequate for loss of reputational benefits and market position. | Applicant relied on this precedent; court distinguished facts. |
| Indigo Services (UK) Ltd. v. The Colchester Institute Corporate [2010] EWHC 3237 (QB) | Factors favoring lifting suspension: avoiding closure of educational facilities. | Considered in balance of convenience analysis. |
| Rutledge Recruitment and Training Limited v. Department for Employment and Learning, Department of Finance and Personnel [2011] NIQB 61 | Importance of contracts delivering services to vulnerable groups. | Considered in balance of convenience analysis. |
| Glasgow Rent Deposit & Support Scheme v. Glasgow City Council [2012] CSOH 1999 | Protection of welfare of specific communities. | Considered in balance of convenience analysis. |
| Shetland Line (194) v. Scottish Ministers [2012] CSOH 99 | Protection of community welfare interests. | Considered in balance of convenience analysis. |
| Lowry Brothers Ltd v. Northern Ireland Water Ltd [2013] NIQB 23 | Imperative of allowing public projects to proceed. | Considered in balance of convenience analysis. |
| Exel Europe Ltd v. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2010] EWHC 3332 (TCC) | Importance of preserving public funds and market conditions. | Considered in balance of convenience analysis. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by analyzing the compatibility of the Amended Regulations with the Directive of 2007. It found that the Directive’s standstill period applies only to contract award decisions, not to interim decisions such as the acceptance of a late tender. Consequently, Ireland’s provision for an automatic suspension upon review of an interim decision and a mechanism to lift that suspension is compatible with EU law.
The court then examined Regulation 8 of the Amended Regulations, which allows a contracting authority to apply to the High Court to lift the automatic suspension on concluding a contract. The court distilled the relevant legal test into three questions: (1) whether the applicant is the contracting authority; (2) whether, absent the automatic suspension, it would be appropriate to grant an injunction restraining contract conclusion; and (3) whether it would be just to impose conditions on any order permitting contract conclusion.
Applying the well-established Campus Oil criteria for interlocutory injunctions, the court found that the Applicant raised a fair and bona fide question to be tried concerning the lawfulness of the late tender acceptance. However, damages were found to be an available and adequate remedy for the Applicant, despite the Applicant’s claims of reputational and market losses. The court expressed skepticism about the alleged unquantifiable losses and distinguished the case from others involving exceptionally prestigious contracts.
On the balance of convenience, the court identified significant public interest factors favoring lifting the suspension. These included the need to avoid delays and additional costs in constructing the new campus, the social and economic benefits of the project, and the absence of any allegation of dishonesty or bad faith by the Respondents. The court noted that the integrity of the procurement process relates to honesty, and even if a mistake were made, it would not necessarily taint the process.
Accordingly, the court concluded that it would not be appropriate to grant an injunction restraining contract conclusion if there were no automatic suspension, and it was satisfied to make an order permitting the Respondents to conclude the contract. The court also considered it just to require the Respondents to provide an undertaking as to damages as a condition of the order.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to ORDER THE LIFTING OF THE AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION that prevented the Respondents from concluding the contract with the Consortium.
The order is conditional upon the Respondents providing an undertaking as to damages, a standard protective measure in interlocutory relief cases.
The direct effect of this decision is to permit the Respondents to proceed with contract conclusion despite the ongoing judicial review challenge. The court did not set new precedent altering the substantive law but clarified the application of the Amended Regulations and the appropriate exercise of discretion in lifting suspensions arising from interim procurement decisions.
Alert