The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the awarding 10 years ago of the contract for what is now the Eircode address system.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said the challenge by navigational code software solutions firm, Loc8Code Ltd, was brought considerably out of time under EU rules dealing with challenges to public procurement contracts, known as the Remedies Regulations.
Even if they did not fall to be struck out under those regulations, the judge said he would have struck them out as being out of time under the rules of court.
In its challenge, Loc8Code claimed anti-competitive behaviour and illegal use of State aid in the awarding of the contract for the national postal code system in 2013.
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Laura Kennedy: We like the ideal of Christmas. The reality, though, is often strained, sad and weird
How Britain’s prison system is teetering on the brink of collapse
Fostering at Christmas: ‘We once had two boys, age 9 and 11, who had never had a Christmas tree’
It claimed it suffered €12 million in losses as a result of an alleged conspiracy in the awarding of the contract by the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications to Capita Business Support Services Ireland Ltd trading as Eircode.
Loc8 Code Ltd said the Eircode system, which was launched in 2014, was known to be “substandard” for companies operating in competition with An Post which was also sued in the case along with Capita and the department. An Post grants access to its “GeoDirectory” database to Capita, as licence holder, for an annual fee.
Loc8Code sought damages for alleged conspiracy and injunctions against Capita and the Department including one restraining the use of “State political and administrative resources to unlawfully promote the commercial activities” of Capita.
It also sought an injunction restraining the department from renewing the Eircode contract in December 2023 or pending determination of the proceedings, whichever was later.
Loc8Code’s claims were strongly denied. Capita claimed the proceedings were potentially detrimental to the functioning of Capita’s business.
The department, Capita and An Post brought applications before the judge seeking the strike out of the case on grounds including delay, that they were improperly constituted and/or misconceived, and frivolous and vexatious.
Affidavits were sworn by Daniel Lawlor, assistant principal in the department, Paul Carroll, a solicitor in An Post’s legal department and Gillian Chamberlain, managing director of Capita, strongly disputing and rejecting claims made by Loc8Code.
In a replying affidavit, Gary Delaney, chief executive of Loc8Code, expanded on the claims of conspiracy and anti-competitive behaviour.
He also said the delay in instituting High Court proceedings was due to the time spent trying to resolve the matter through other channels, including the EU, so as not to have to resort to litigation.
The judge said Mr Delaney made an “abundance” of allegations of wrongdoing, some of which the judge described as “sensational”.
However, none of these allegations have ever been tried, let alone established to exist, before a court of law, he emphasised.
They are, he said, at this time, and may forever be, unproven allegations which were completely denied by the defendants.
He found the delay in bringing the case was protracted and without any clear reason for it.
He said, that even if the normal tight time constraints of the remedies regulations for bringing these challenges did not apply, and they did in this case, there was “simply no basis” on which he could properly tolerate the delay and allow these proceedings to continue.
Likewise, under the rules of court, the proceedings had been “commenced very considerably” outside the three-month time limit for doing so, he said.
No application was made to extend that time limit and even if it had been, ignoring for a moment that the remedies regulations were the applicable law, there was simply no basis for granting an extension, he said.
The judge also said he was conscious his judgment would come as a disappointment to Loc8Code, “and I suspect to Mr Delaney, and I am sorry that this is so”.
Nonetheless, he considered he was obliged by law to make the order dismissing the case.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here
