What you need to know
- This case, Q-Park Ireland Limited and Dublin Street Parking Services Limited v Dublin City Council[1], arose in the context of a competition for on-street parking enforcement services.
- Q-Park, the losing tenderer and the incumbent, challenged the award of the €51 million contract, which triggered the automatic suspension.
- In determining whether to lift the automatic suspension, the High Court considered the commercial impact. This included the likelihood that the existing contract with Q-Park would have to be extended by up to two years, even though it had lost the tender competition. It also included the financial detriment to the successful tenderer, APCOA, as it would be liable to pay an annual rent for the use of a car pound which was the basis for its tender.
- The High Court gave significant weight to the fact that Q-Park refused to undertake to compensate APCOA for any damages caused by this financial loss. This would mean that Q-Park, the unsuccessful tenderer, would financially benefit from the continuation of the suspension.
- This is the first time the Irish courts have considered the absence of an undertaking as to damages from a challenger (Q-Park) to a notice party (APCOA) as a factor in the decision on whether to lift a suspension.
Background
Dublin City Council (DCC) ran a mini-competition under a multi-party framework for the provision of on-street parking enforcement services in Dublin. Q-Park, the incumbent service provider, and APCOA were the only tenderers. The contract was valued at €51.2 million.
Following the announcement of APCOA as the successful tenderer, Q-Park brought proceedings in the High Court, which triggered an automatic suspension preventing the award of the contract. This meant that the existing contract with Q-Park had to be extended by three months.
Judicial review in public procurement challenges
Public procurement challenges are different to other judicial reviews. This is due to the fact that they lead to an automatic suspension, preventing the contracting authority from signing the contract with the winning tenderer. Where an application is made to lift the suspension, the Court must consider whether the suspension should continue pending a trial at some future date to determine whether the procurement process was flawed.
In determining whether or not to lift the suspension in this case, the High Court needed to consider whether there was a serious issue to be tried, and whether or not the balance of justice favours the lifting of the suspension.
The Court emphasised that the onus is on the challenger to grant an injunction, i.e. to continue the suspension - preventing DCC from signing the contract with APCOA.
Balance of justice
DCC accepted that there was a fair question or serious issue to be tried. The Court, therefore, had to consider whether the balance of justice favoured continuing the suspension, including whether damages would be an adequate remedy.
Commercial realities
The Court examined the commercial realities. It noted that, if the suspension continued, the substantive proceedings could take approximately 18 months to conclude, particularly if there was an appeal. Q-Park’s existing contract had already been extended, resulting in a ‘windfall’ to Q-Park. The Court considered it likely that, if the suspension was not lifted, the existing contract with Q-Park would have to be extended further for one to two years. This meant that, even if Q-Park was to ultimately lose the challenge, it would financially gain from the continuation of the contract.
Conversely, APCOA faced significant financial consequences as a result of the suspension. Its tender relied on a car pound which it had secured through an option agreement which was nearing expiration. APCOA would need to pay approximately €200,000 to €250,000 per year to secure the car pound during the legal dispute.
The Court did not suggest that Q-Park had brought the challenge for financial, rather than legal, reasons. However, it considered that Q-Park’s failure to offer an undertaking as to damages to APCOA was a significant factor in the balance of justice against the continuation of the suspension.
APCOA stated it could not afford to absorb the costs of renting the car pound without the benefit of the contract with DCC. It submitted that, once the option period passed, it would be forced to give up the site and be incapable of fulfilling the contract. The Court rejected Q-Park’s argument that APCOA could use another car pound, noting that it is not for the losing tenderer to propose alternatives.
Adequacy of damages
Q-Park argued that its business would cease to exist, meaning damages would not be a sufficient remedy. The Court said that similar claims should be treated with caution, particularly where they arise from the way a corporate group is structured. Similarly, the Court did not accept that any reputational damage arising from Q-Park’s failure to win the tender would be so significant that damages would not be an adequate remedy.
Reasons for lifting the suspension
Ultimately, the Court found that the following factors, made worse by Q-Park’s refusal to undertake to compensate APCOA for damages, tipped the balance in favour of lifting the automatic suspension:
- Q-Park would profit financially from the continuation of the suspension, completely independent of the legal merits of its case
- APCOA would suffer financial detriment and risked losing the contract
- The presumed validity of the tender process, and
- The likelihood of DCC having to re-run the tender process at a significant cost to the taxpayer, even if DCC were ultimately successful in the proceedings.
Key takeaways
This is the first time the Irish High Court has ruled that the absence of an undertaking to a notice party is a factor in favour of lifting the automatic suspension. In doing so, the High Court is following English case law.
The Court clarified that it will look at the commercial realities of the suspension, including any financial windfall for the challenger and financial detriment for the successful tenderer.
Contact our Public Procurement team
The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.
[1] [2026] IEHC 552
