Cork firm fails in court action over postcode tender

Loc8 Code Ltd says it suffered more than €34m 'loss, damage and expense' to its business as a result of an alleged conspiracy in the awarding of the postcode contract in 2013

On Wednesday, the judge struck out Loc8’s action, saying 'proceedings have been commenced very considerably out of time'.

The High Court has struck out an action by a Cork-based navigational software company over what it alleges was conspiratorial anti-competitive behaviour in the awarding of contract for the national postal code system in 2013.

Loc8 Code Ltd says it suffered more than €34m “loss, damage and expense” to its business as a result of an alleged conspiracy in the awarding of the postcode contract by the Department of Environment to Capita Business Support Services Ireland Ltd, trading as Eircode.

As well as taking the action against the Department of the Environment, and Capita, the Cork company had also sued An Post, which grants access to its GeoDirectory address database to Eircode for an annual fee.

Loc8’s claims had been denied by the three postcode system partners, which maintained the firm had failed to properly identify which defendants were allegedly involved in the conspiracy and also failed to provide sufficient evidence or details of the alleged conspiracy.

They also stated, in their own motions, to have Loc8’s claims dismissed, that given the contract was awarded so long ago, the company — which is run by businessman Gary Delaney — was statute-barred and was not entitled to bring the claim due to its delay in bringing the action.

It was last before the High Court in June, when submissions were made by both sides before Mr Justice Max Bartlett.

On Wednesday, he struck out Loc8’s action, allowing the postcode partners’ own motions that the claim be dismissed.

The judge said: “These proceedings have been commenced very considerably out of time. In essence, the plaintiff’s claim is for breach of public procurement law. It has been years late in commencing these proceedings. 

"There are also claims concerning conspiracy, breach of competition law, breach of state aid rules, and interference with the conclusion of contracts.

“These other claims are vague and inadequately particularised, but, perhaps even more significantly, they are inextricably connected with, and indeed derivative to, the public procurement claim that is at the heart of these proceedings — they have likewise been brought years out of time.” 

He added: “I am conscious that this judgment will come as a disappointment to the plaintiff, and I suspect to Mr Delaney, and I am sorry that this is so.

“Nonetheless, I consider that I am obliged by law to make the just-mentioned order.”