The Court of Appeal has rejected most of Tom Kelleher’s challenge to the termination of his contract as postmaster in Newcastle West, while ruling that An Post could not unilaterally set the amount it said he owed for missing funds.
In a judgment delivered on 28 June 2016, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said An Post could pursue a disputed claim for contractual damages through substantive proceedings. The court allowed the appeal only on that point, declaring that the company had no entitlement to specify the sum due by Mr Kelleher on its own. It otherwise dismissed his appeal against the High Court decision.
Mr Kelleher had been on holiday in Spain with his wife when his adult son was kidnapped at gunpoint in June 2011. Staff at the Newcastle West post office handed €105,000 to the kidnappers. The son was released without physical injury. An Post later raised concerns about the office’s security procedures, Mr Kelleher’s handling of company funds, delayed business deposits and unauthorised access to the post office’s computer system.
An Post terminated Mr Kelleher’s contract after an internal disciplinary process and initially said he was responsible for 50 per cent of the missing money. After some €41,950 was recovered and returned to the company, An Post sought €31,525, according to the judgment’s account of correspondence. The judgment later refers to the disputed claim as €31,250. The court’s ruling on the repayment claim did not decide the amount, or whether Mr Kelleher was liable to pay it.
Mr Kelleher argued that the procedure used was unfair, that he should have received reports prepared during the internal process, and that contact between an An Post manager and an Irish Postmasters’ Union representative showed pre-judgment or bias. He also challenged An Post’s right to recover the money through that process.
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Kelleher had knowingly taken part in the Appendix IV procedure without objecting until the decision went against him, and could not then challenge its use. It found he was not entitled to the internal reports in the circumstances because, in a letter of 12 October 2011, he had accepted the substance of the allegations. The court also found the evidence did not establish impropriety, bias or pre-judgment arising from the union representative’s conversation with the An Post manager.
The High Court had dismissed Mr Kelleher’s claims in 2013. The Court of Appeal left that decision in place except for its declaration that any disputed claim for the missing money must be pursued as an unliquidated claim for damages in substantive proceedings.