Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment

Last updated

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Citation(s)[2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25
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.
Court membership
Judges sittingKeane C.J., Denham J., McGuinness J, Fennelly J, Hardiman J
Keywords

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]

Contents

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]

See also


Judicial review in the Republic of Ireland

Administration (law)

Constitution of Ireland

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

Related Research Articles

Crotty v. An Taoiseach was a landmark 1987 decision of the Irish Supreme Court which found that Ireland could not ratify the Single European Act unless the Irish Constitution was first changed to permit its ratification. The case, taken by Raymond Crotty formally against the Taoiseach, directly led to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland and established that significant changes to European Union treaties required an amendment to the Irish constitution before they could be ratified by Ireland. As a consequence, the Republic of Ireland, uniquely in the EU, requires a plebiscite for every new, or substantive change to a, European Union Treaty.

Christopher Palles

Christopher Palles, was an Irish barrister, Solicitor-General, Attorney-General and a judge for over 40 years. His biographer V.T.H. Delany describes him as "the greatest of the Irish judges". He served as the last Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer from 1874 until his retirement from the bench in 1916.

Mary Irvine is an Irish judge who is the President of the Irish High Court, the first woman appointed to that role. She first was a Judge of the High Court between 2007 to 2014. She was a Judge of the Court of Appeal from 2014 to 2019 and served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland from May 2019 until becoming President of the High Court on 18 June 2020. She is an ex officio member of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Callan v Ireland& The Attorney General,[2013] IESC 35; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257, was an Irish Supreme Court case which ruled on the decision to commute the sentence of death imposed on Callan to penal servitude for 40 years without allowing for remission. Noel Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 but had his sentence commuted to 40 years of penal servitude by the President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery. The High Court rejected Callan's appeal that he was eligible for remission. Callan then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Callan was indeed serving imprisonment and so by law could request remission of his penalty.

<i>Gilroy v Flynn</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilroy v Flynn [2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. While the Court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff.

<i>Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In the case of Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157, the Supreme Court of Ireland found that the proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the case concerned an application for judicial review of an asylum decision, the decision was described as carrying “implications for the whole body of Irish administrative law”.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2002] 2 IR 305; [2002] IESC 27; [2002] 2 ILRM 241, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that fair procedure imposes a duty on the prosecution to seek out and preserve all evidence that has a bearing or a potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence.

<i>De Roiste v Minister for Defence</i> Irish Supreme Court case

De Róiste v Minister for Defence, [2001] 1 IR190, [2001] IESC 4; [2001] 2 ILRM 241, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the extended delay in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of charges.

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 107, [2002] 1 ILRM 16 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that refusal of an application for asylum may constitute a sufficient basis for the government to order the applicant's deportation.

<i>Collins v Minister for Finance</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Collins v Minister for Finance[2016] IESC 73; [2017] 1 ILRM 65; [2017] 3 IR 99, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which it was held that the Minister for Finance did not breach his power in issuing promissory notes under the Credit Institutions Act 2008, which was found to be constitutional. Collins' appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which concluded that, “a Minister for Finance can spend any amount of money they deem necessary in an emergency without going back to the Dáil and we will be challenging that in the Dáil itself.” The case thus legalised emergency measure to deal with Ireland's financial crisis. This was a case in which "the matters described" were of "national importance."

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison[2006] IESC 45; [2006] 4 IR 88; [2006] 2 ILRM 481, the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that a finding that criminal legislation is unconstitutional need not render existing convictions void.

<i>Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison [2014] IESC 54 was a case in which the Irish supreme court ruled that, ordinarily, a Court order detaining a convicted individual that is not prima facie invalid should only be challenged through an appeal of the conviction or an application for judicial review rather than through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus.

<i>Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775, is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges. The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.

<i>D.C. v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

D.C. v DPP[2005] 4 IR 281, [2006] ILRM 348; [2005] IESC 77 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that the standard to be met for prohibiting a trial is "where there is a real or serious risk of an unfair trial".

<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

References

  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. 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