Orange Communications Ltd has asked the High Court to carry out a "re-evaluation" of the refusal of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation to grant it a mobile phone operating licence.
Mr Michael McDowell SC, for Orange, said that when his clients asked for a reason for the refusal, the only one proffered was that Meteor Mobile Communications had beaten them. Orange was never given a reasoned comparative analysis of its application in relation to Meteor.
The substance of the decision was that Meteor had performed better in competition for the licence than Orange, which was ranked second, and that was why it was refused the licence.
Mr McDowell was making opening submissions to Ms Justice Macken on the first day of legal proceedings brought by Orange, a UK mobile phone operator, with registered offices at Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin, against the Director, Ms Etain Doyle and Meteor, with an address at City West, Naas Road, Dublin.
Meteor is 60 per cent owned by the American mobile phone operator Western Wireless, while Irish firm RF Communications owns 30 per cent and 10 per cent is owned by the Seattle-based consultancy the Walter Group.
In its statement of claim yesterday, Orange alleged it was told of the Director's decision not to grant it a licence on June 18th, 1998. On June 25th, Orange personnel met the Director and for the first time were told of the "exact weighting" used by her in evaluating the applications of the two companies. They were also informed of the alleged shortcomings of the Orange application.
The company alleged the Director had "been biased and pre judiced".
In her defence, the Director denied that she failed, refused or neglected properly to consider the applications from both companies. She also denied her decision was erroneous or perverse or that she told Orange the process was at an end. The Director said she refused to provide documents requested because to disclose precise marks awarded would be inimical to any future tendering process and disclosure would have been inconsistent with the terms of the process.
Meteor said it did not accept that the proceedings brought by Orange involved a new evaluation of the rival bids or that the court was to stand in the place of the Director and was entitled to assess the bids and award a licence.
Meteor denied the Director conducted an evaluation of the rival bids in a mistaken or misleading manner or that it was wrong or perverse. It also denied that Orange was the mobile telephone provider "best placed to provide service" to users in terms of prices, coverage, experience or quality of service.
The hearing is expected to last for several weeks.