An Post v The Commission for Regulation
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hedigan |
| Judgment Date | 04 October 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] IEHC 405 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 04 October 2012 |
[2012] IEHC 405
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN:
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S21(2)
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S16(1)
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S6(3)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001 S223
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S47(4)
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S17(1)
INTERPRETATION ACT 2005 S25
RSC O.84
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S16(1)(A)
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S32
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S32(6)
REGISTRATION OF DEEDS (NO.2) RULES SI 457/2009
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001 PART 18
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1946 S76
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1946 S78
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1946 S79
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION ACT 2002 S10(1)(BA)
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION ACT 2002 S10(1)(C)
THE STATE (KEEGAN) v STARDUST COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 2 IR 642
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011 S21(2)
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION ACT 2002 S10(3)
HOGAN & MORGAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN IRELAND P708
GORMAN v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 2001 2 IR 414
MCKERNAN v EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2009 2 IR 7
MEADOWS v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2010 2 IR 701
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Certiorari
Applicant's obligations as universal postal service provider - Statutory obligations to deliver post - System of addressing - Postal address - Difference between postal address and geographical address - Respondent's role as postal services regulator - Direction by respondent - Proportionality - Fair procedures - Audi alteram partem - Whether applicant required to deliver to address other than "postal address" - Whether respondent had entitlement to determine addresses - Whether respondent entitled to give direction to applicant to ensure compliance with postal requirements - Whether court entitled to take judicial notice of concept of postal addressing - Whether direction pursued illegitimate aim - Whether direction disproportionate - Whether direction irrational or unreasonable - Whether direction vitiated by errors of law - Whether breach of natural and constitutional justice - Whether impugned decision plainly and ambiguously flew in the face of fundamental reason and common sense - Whether error outside of jurisdiction - Whether failure to take account of relevant considerations - O'Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 IR 39; State (Keegan) v Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986] 2 IR 642; Gorman v Minister for the Environment [2001] 2 IR 414; McKernan v Employment Appeals Tribunal [2008] IEHC 40, (Unrep, Feeney, 5/2/2008) and Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] 2 IR 701, [2010] IESC 3 considered - Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011 (No 21), ss 6(3), 16(1), 17(1), 21(2), 22, 23, 32 and 47 - Communications Regulations Act 2002 (No 20), s 10(1) - Local Government Act 2001 (No 37), s 223 - Local Government Act 1946 (No 24), ss 76, 78 and 79 - Interpretation Act 2005 (No 23), s 25 - Arbitration Act 2010 (No 1) - Registration of Deeds (No 2) Rules 2009 (SI 457/2009) - Planning and Development (Amendment) (No 3) Regulations 2011 (SI 476/2011, reg 4(3) - Decision quashed (2012/106JR - Hedigan J - 4/10/2012) [2012] IEHC 405
An Post v Commission for Regulation
Facts: A direction was made by the respondent requiring the applicant to deliver post to a disputed address. The applicant argued that the direction was tantamount to an unacceptable form of micromanagement of its postal delivery service and was ultra vires the respondent authority. The respondent argued that the applicant was trying to establish itself as the addressing authority of the State. An Post was designated as a universal postal service provider pursuant to s. 21(2) Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011. The Court considered the legality of the directions.
Held by Hedigan J. that both the applicant and respondent were exercising expertise but the applicant in reality was the real expert in postal delivery. The decision of the respondent to issue the direction was made without consideration of the highly relevant fact that the concept of postal address was an established reality. The concept of a postal address as differing from an exact geographical address had existed since the foundation of the State. They thus stepped outside of their expertise. The direction was made ultra vires and an order of certiorari would be made.
Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered the 4th day of October 2012
1. The applicant address is General Post Office, O'Connell Street Lower, Dublin 1. The respondents address is Block DEF, Abbey Court, Irish Life Centre, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin 1.
2. Reliefs Sought:-
(1) An order of certiorari by way of an application for judicial review quashing the Respondent's Direction to the Applicant (the "Direction") of 22 November 2011, adopted by the Respondent pursuant to Section 21(2) of the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act, 2011 (the "2011 Act").
(2) A declaration by way of an application for judicial review that An Post's obligation under Section 16(1) of the 2011 Act or under Section 6(3) of the 2011 Act or otherwise relates to the 'postal address' as determined by An Post.
(3) A declaration by way of an application for judicial review that the Applicant is not required to recognise an address based on a District Electoral Division (now referred to, pursuant to Section 223 of the Local Government Act, 2001, as an "electoral division") ("DED") which is different from the post town which applies to the premises as a "true direction" within the meaning of Section 47(4) of the 2011 Act for the purposes of its obligations as universal postal service provider (the "USP") pursuant to Section 17(1) of the 2011 Act.
(4) A declaration that the phrase "properly addressing" in Section 25 of the Interpretation Act, 2005 relates to the 'postal address' and not to such various addresses as the Respondent may decide to be a "legal address".
(5) Such interim relief as the Court deems fit.
(6) Directions if need be on matters of interpretation of Order 84 RSC as it affects these proceedings.
2 3.1 The dispute which is the subject matter of these proceedings, relates to a direction issued by the respondent on the 22 nd November 2011, requiring the applicant to deliver post to a disputed address. The address in question belongs to two of the applicant's customers Patrick and Sandra O'Connell. The O'Connell's seek to use the address "Blackstone Bridge, Watergrasshill, County Cork." They argue that this address is an accurate geographical description of their location. The applicant however argues that their correct postal address is "Blackstone Bridge, Rathcormac, Co. Cork". The O'Connell's purchased their current property in 2002 and since that time they have used an address bearing a reference to Rathcormac. However they say that as their address is located in Watergrasshill, a small amount of post inevitably bore the Watergrasshill address.
3 3.2 Between 2002 and January 2011 the O'Connell's received post marked with this address "Blackstone Bridge, Watergrasshill, County Cork", albeit that such post was often delivered one day late. The O'Connell's were prepared to overlook this delay in order to accommodate the local postmen as much as possible. In 2011 An Post introduced its address verification tool to increase the use of correct 'postal addresses'. As part of this program, incorrectly addressed postal packets had adhesive stickers or written instructions placed on them in order to inform the addressee that the postal packet had been incorrectly addressed.
4 3.3 From 2011 postal packets sent to the O'Connell's and addressed as "Blackstone Bridge, Watergrasshill, County Cork" arrived with stickers or instructions indicating that the address used was an incorrect one. On the 11 th of March 2011, the O'Connell's submitted a complaint to An Post customer services stating that:-
(i) at some point after purchasing their home in 2002 they were asked by An Post to refer to Rathcormac in their 'postal address' as their house was served by a postal operative whose route originated in Rathcormac post office;
(ii) while they had been willing to comply with this request they were dissatisfied that some of their mail which was addressed by reference to "Watergrasshill" had been delayed and often had stickers or writing applied to it; and
(iii) they were of the view that their property had at all times been in Watergrasshill.
5 3.4 Having received no response, they complained to the respondent. On the 13 th of May 2011, Jean Dwyer of ComReg emailed Aileen Canning of An Post in relation to the complaint stating; -
"The customer has submitted a complaint to An Post customer service on the 21 st March 2011, with Rory Cooke and to date has not heard from him. His local post office told him to change the town land name for ease for the delivery for post to him. They wanted him to change Watergrasshill to Rathcormac. He is now experiencing delays from 24 hours to 3-4 days late. He has not changed the address for anything to do with his house for value purposes. He has also found out that his local post office has sent back mail to the sender stating not right address…"
On the 20 th of May 2011, Aileen Canning of An Post replied to Jean Dwyer as follows:-
"… We, to improve Quality of Service, are enforcing the Address Verification tool, which shows Mr. O'Connell's address as Rathcormac. They are delivered from different delivery offices; hence there will be a delay if he...
To continue reading
Request your trial