Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment
Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment
	Coat of arms of Ireland
Court	Supreme Court of Ireland
Citation	[2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25
Court membership
Judges sitting	Keane C.J., Denham J., McGuinness J, Fennelly J, Hardiman J
Case opinions
	Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a key feature of both european law and consquequent court tules in regards to public procument contracts is the policy of urgency.
Keywords
	Court Rules; Judicial Review; Public Sector Projects; Constitutional Law; Administrative Law;

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which it was decided that the earliest opportunity to apply for a review of a decision made by the court arises within the three-month period after the decision is made, and that courts have no power to extend that time. The Court held that a key feature of both European law and court rules is the policy of urgency.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Background

Facts of case

Bidding for the National Car Test (NCT) system in Ireland opened in the late 1990s. In 1998 Noel Dempsey, then Minister of Environment and Local Government, award the contract to SGS Ireland ltd. Dekra, which had not been awarded the contract, issued judicial review proceedings against the Minister in March 1999 to challenge the decision.^[4]

High Court

In response SGS Ltd in June 1999, sought to strike out Dekra's proceedings for judicial review on the grounds that Dekra had not complied with three-month time limit prescribed under court rules. The High Court refused SGS application and exercised its discretion in favor for extending the time limit. This resulted in both SGS and the Minister appealing the High Court decision to the Supreme Court.^[5]^[6]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court over-ruled the High Court and allowed the appeal from SGS and The Minister for Environment and Local Government.^[7]

Denham J stated it was clear that grounds for Dekra's application for leave to take judicial review proceedings existed by December 14 after the debriefing meeting and therefore the time for bringing the application ran from that date. However, Dekra did not issue proceedings until March 25, 1999, in turn failing to comply with the three month time limit in court rules.^[8]^[9]^[10]

Fennelly J also commented stating in litigation involving disputes between well-resourced corporate undertaking "there should be very little excuse for delay".^[11]^[12]

Subsequent developments

The decision of this case was subsequently followed and approved in the supreme court case of O' Brien v Moriarty [2005] ^[13] where Denham J remained of the view she expressed in this case.^[14]

External links

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 at https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2003/21.html

Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper in Judicial Review Procedure LRC CP 20- 2003

References

^ "NCT court case cannot continue". The Irish Times. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25
^ Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper in Judicial Review Procedure LRC CP 20- 2003 para 1.49 https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cjpudicialReview.htm
^ Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 para 12
^ Dekra v Minister for the Environment and Local Government - [2003] 2 IR 270 - [2003] 2 ILRM 210
^ Annual Review of Irish Law 2007, 21(1), 46-84
^ (Denham J); Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 para 4-5
^ Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 para 82
^ Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 4) (Review of the Award of Public Contracts) 1998 IR SI 374/1998
^ Order 84A, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Court, 1986
^ Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 para 96
^ Annual Review of Irish Law 2012, 26(1), 422
^ O' Brien v Moriarty [2005] IESC 32, [2006] 2 IR 221
^ O' Brien v Moriarty [2005] IESC 32, [2006] 2 IR 221 para c

[1] "NCT court case cannot continue". The Irish Times. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

[2] Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25

[3] Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper in Judicial Review Procedure LRC CP 20- 2003 para 1.49 https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cjpudicialReview.htm

[:4-4] Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 para 12

[5] Dekra v Minister for the Environment and Local Government - [2003] 2 IR 270 - [2003] 2 ILRM 210

[6] Annual Review of Irish Law 2007, 21(1), 46-84

[7] (Denham J); Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 para 4-5

[8] Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 para 82

[9] Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 4) (Review of the Award of Public Contracts) 1998 IR SI 374/1998

[10] Order 84A, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Court, 1986

[11] Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 para 96

[12] Annual Review of Irish Law 2012, 26(1), 422

[13] O' Brien v Moriarty [2005] IESC 32, [2006] 2 IR 221

[14] O' Brien v Moriarty [2005] IESC 32, [2006] 2 IR 221 para c

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]