SIAC Construction Ltd v Mayo County Council

Last updated

SIAC Construction Ltd v The County Council of the County of Mayo
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
CitationSIAC Construction Ltd. v. Mayo County Council [2002] IESC 39 (9 May 2002)
Case history
Appealed fromSIAC Construction Ltd v The County Council of the County of Mayo
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judge sittingKeane C.J./ Denham J. / Murray J. / Hardiman J. / Fennelly J.
Case opinions
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and affirm the order of the High Court.
Keywords
Invitation to tender, tender invitation to most economically advantageous, whether responded adequately explained decision to award contract to party other than lowest tenderer, discretion of awarding authority, Council Directive 71/305/E.E.C.

SIAC Construction Ltd v The County Council of the County of Mayo [2002] IESC 39, [1] [2002] 3 IR 148 was a case in which the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that, in exercising its margin of discretion in the area of public procurement, a tender awarding authority is required to respect the general principles of equality, transparency and objectivity. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

On the 1992 Mayo County Council advertised an open procedure for a public work contract. In advertisement Council noted that they not going to make a decisions based on "lowest price only" the preference will be based on "most economically advantageous" tender. SIAC Construction tender for the provision of a new sewerage system for town of Ballinrobe. SIAC made the lowest tender.

Mayo County Council employed a consulting engineer, who reported that Pat Mulcair might prove "at the end of the day to be the lowest. [4] SIAC Construction took Mayo County Council to the High Court of judicial review stating that Council acted in breach of awarding the contract, to other party, in respect of public requirements.

On 11 October 1993, SIAC made an application to the High Court concerning of a decision made be the Mayo County Council not to award a construction contract. Judge Laffoy on 17 June 1997 decided that SIAC is not entitled to any reliefs.

At that point SIAC made an application to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, a reference was submitted to the European Court of Justice on 18 October 2001 to clarify the Article 29 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971.

High Court decision

SIAC claimed that Mayo County Council were in breach of the European Communities Directive 71/305/EEC (as now consolidated in Directive 93/37/EEC) and/or the European Communities (Award of Public Works Contracts) Regulations, 1992 (S.I. No. 36 of 1992). [5]

On 17 June 1997 High Court decide that SIAC is not entitled to any reliefs. Mayo County Council is not liable in damages to the SIAC Construction Ltd for breach of the 1971 Council Directive and 1992 Regulations. [6]

Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court of Justice of the European Union received a question concerning the interpretation of Article 29 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 [6] in relation to the procedures for the award of public works contracts between SIAC Construction Ltd and the County Council of Mayo.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities gave its judgment on 18 October 2001, where it was explained that Article 29 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 [6] could be interpreted for the benefit of County Council Mayo as to whether the criteria on the award was clearly stated in the contract notice and decision made on professional opinion based on objective factors. [7] The European Court concluded that such an interpretation is a matter for the national court.

Holding of the Supreme Court

SIAC was seeking to rely on the judgment of the European Court to pursue issues which were not dealt in the appeal of the High Court. County Council advertised tender "most economically advantageous" [8] and not to be made on the basis of "lowest price only." [8] SIAC submitted lowest price, therefore the consulting engineer employed by County Council reported that Pat Mulcair might prove "at the end of the day to be the lowest." [7] SIAC claimed that the engineer did not acted objectively and his estimates were wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that County Council acted within the margin of discretion by choosing right tender. The engineer approached calculations correctly. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and affirm the order of the High Court. [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Duration Directive</span>

Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights is a European Union directive in the field of EU copyright law, made under the internal market provisions of the Treaty of Rome. It was replaced by the 2006 Copyright Term Directive (2006/116/EC).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law</span> Concepts in Canadian contract law

The terms Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law refer to a concept applied by the Canadian courts regarding the fair and equal treatment of bidders in a contract tendering process, for example to award a construction contract. Essentially this concept formalizes previously applied precedents and strengthens the protection afforded to those who submit bids in the tendering process. The concept was introduced in 1981 by the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd. The court found that a "duty of fairness" was owed to all bidders by an owner in a tendering process.

Government procurement or public procurement is undertaken by the public authorities of the European Union (EU) and its member states in order to award contracts for public works and for the purchase of goods and services in accordance with principles derived from the Treaties of the European Union. Such procurement represents 13.6% of EU GDP as of March 2023, and has been the subject of increasing European regulation since the 1970s because of its importance to the European single market.

The Alcatel mandatory standstill period is a period of at least ten calendar days following the notification of an award decision in a contract tendered via the Official Journal of the European Union, before the contract is signed with the successful supplier(s). Its purpose is to allow unsuccessful bidders to challenge the decision before the contract is signed. It is named after a pair of linked European Court of Justice cases which are jointly known as the Alcatel case. Under EU law a statutory "standstill period" was introduced by the Remedies Directive as amended in 2007. Within the UK, it was introduced by the Office of Government Commerce in 2005 and remains within UK contract award legislation under regulation 87 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and regulation 86 of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015, even though the UK has now withdrawn from the European Union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Good faith (law)</span> Implied covenant of honesty and fair dealing in contract law

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in a number of contract types in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir</span> President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Robert John Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir, is a Scottish judge who has been President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom since January 2020. He was the principal judge in the Commercial Court in Scotland before being promoted to the Inner House of the Court of Session in 2008. He is an authority on human rights law in Scotland and elsewhere; he served as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights. He was also a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.

An economic operator is a business or other organisation which supplies goods, works or services within the context of market operations. The term is used in public procurement to cover suppliers, contractors and service providers.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive93/13/EEC is a European Union directive governing the use of surprising or onerous terms used by business in deals with consumers.

SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd (2012) C-406/10 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that copyright protection does not extend to software functionality, programming languages, and file types.

Economic and financial standing refers to a business organisation's scale, financial resources and insurance, especially when these are assessed by a public body when determining whether the business may be considered as a potential supplier.

<i>R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport</i>

R v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.

<i>Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny</i> 2016 Irish Supreme Court case

Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny, [2016] IESC 9, [2016] 2 IR 283 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court confirmed the Irish courts’ jurisdiction to strike out (dismiss) weak cases—those it considered “bound to fail."

<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>Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>OConnell 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>Delahunty v Player and Wills (Ireland) Ltd.</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Delahunty v Player and Wills (Ireland) Ltd, [2006] 1 IR 304; [2006] IESC 21 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court gave a woman permission to take action for damages against two major tobacco companies in what was the first step in the battle against 'Big tobacco'.

<i>Stephens v Paul Flynn Ltd</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gerald J.P. Stephens v. Paul Flynn Ltd.[2008] IESC 4; [2008] 4 IR 31 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, absent special circumstances, a party's failure to deliver a statement of claim within a period of twenty months is inexcusable and will justify dismissal of the litigation.

<i>Quinn v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (In Special Liquidation) & ors</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Quinn v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd & ors [2015] IESC 29, [2016] 1 IR 1 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. This case involved businessman Sean Quinn and his Family in their dealings with Anglo Irish Bank. This important decision was about whether or not a contract is automatically unenforceable if it is illegal.

References

  1. "SIAC Construction Ltd. v. Mayo County Council [2002] IESC 39 (9 May 2002)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
  2. "Public works contracts". McGarr Solicitors. 28 May 2008.
  3. "Evaluated: Supreme Court provides clarity on the review of public procurement processes". Philip Lee Solicitors. 7 June 2019.
  4. SIAC Construction Ltd, Applicant, v The County Council of the County of Mayo, Respondent - [2002] 3 IR 148
  5. "Siac Construction v. Mayo County Council [1997] IEHC 97 (17th June, 1997)". www.bailii.org.
  6. 1 2 3 "Council Directive". 26 July 1971.
  7. 1 2 "Court of Justice of the European Communities". British and Irish Legal Information Institute.
  8. 1 2 3 "SIAC Construction Ltd. v. Mayo County Council [2002] IESC 39 (9th May, 2002)". British and Irish Legal Information Institute.