The High Court has ordered An Post to discover two security documents in a personal injuries case brought by Susan Byrne, while refusing discovery of an invoice relating to an alarm upgrade at Balbriggan sub-post office.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey made the orders on an application by Byrne. The dispute concerned three categories of documents sought from An Post: a Postmaster’s Manual, records of security inspections or supervision at Balbriggan, and a security procedures booklet. An Post argued that disclosure could pose a systemic risk to post offices and the people who work in or use them. It also argued that the inspection records were irrelevant.
The case arises from an alleged tiger kidnapping on 4 October 2011. Byrne’s claim says masked raiders entered her home, tied her and her husband up, then took him away and threatened his life. She says she was ordered to go to work at the Balbriggan post office and fill bags with cash after an anticipated delivery. The judgment says the robbery did not proceed and her husband escaped. These are matters described in the claim, not findings made on the discovery application.
Byrne alleges that the postmaster failed to warn or train her about risks associated with holding keys, and that An Post failed to provide adequate guidance or ensure security practices were followed. Both defendants deny liability. An Post says Byrne was employed by the postmaster, who acted independently, and denies responsibility for his actions.
The judge reviewed the disputed documents. He found the undated Postmaster’s Manual relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the case. Although confidential and sensitive, he found no significant risk that its disclosure would create the systemic security risk asserted by An Post. He ordered its discovery.
An Post had produced one document for the inspection category: a 7 December 2010 invoice that appeared to concern an intruder alarm upgrade at Balbriggan. The judge found it neither relevant to the allegations against An Post nor necessary for a fair disposal of the proceedings, and did not order its discovery.
The judge also ordered discovery of An Post’s 2006 Security Procedures Handbook for Retail Sub-Post Offices. He found it relevant to what security guidance and training An Post provided before the incident, including on tiger kidnapping, and necessary for a fair disposal of the case. He said the handbook was confidential and might contain sensitive information, but did not find that it attracted public interest privilege. An Post may redact the telephone number referenced on page 19.
The judgment did not make a formal order for inspection or production. The judge said he would expect the plaintiff, her solicitor, counsel and any expert witness given access to undertake to use the documents only for the proceedings, with sight restricted to those people. He left the precise form of the order to be addressed with the parties and allowed them to apply if a practical difficulty arose.