Francis Cuffe (plaintiff) v Coras Iompair Eireann (first defendant) and An Post (second defendant).

Employer's Liability - Damages awarded to CIE depot man injured while lifting mailbag - Contract for conveyance of mail - Whether CIE had agreed to indemnify An Post in relation to all actions.

The Supreme Court (the Chief Justice Mr Justice Hamilton, Mr Justice Blayney, Mr Justice Keane); judgment delivered 22 October 1996.

WHERE a party to a contract intends a clause in that contract to be particularly favourable to him, it shall be for that party to ensure that the clause has the desired meaning without ambiguity.

The Supreme Court so held in allowing CIE's appeal against a decision of the High Court which ordered CIE to indemnify An Post in respect of damages awarded by the court to the plaintiff.

John M. Fitzgerald SC, Padraig McCartan SC and Michael Byrne BL for CIE; Gerard Lee SC and Miriam Malone BL for An Post.

MR JUSTICE KEANE, delivering the judgment of the court, said that the plaintiff's injuries had occurred during the course of his employment as a CIE depot man when he had attempted to lift a post bag belonging to An Post. In the High Court, An Post had been found guilty of negligence in exposing the plaintiff to the risk of lifting a bag which was heavier than its appearance suggested; no appeal was taken against this finding of liability.

Mr Justice Keane said that the case depended entirely on the construction of Clause 7(a) of a contract for the conveyance of mails which had been entered into between the predecessor of An Post, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and CIE on 3 May 1968. That particular clause stated, inter alia, that CIE should indemnify the Minister from and against all factions suits claims or demands arising under the Workmen's Compensation Acts 1934 to 1955 or any statutory re-enactment thereof in respect of any personal injury by accident to any guard or servant of CIE while in charge of mails". Mr Justice Keane said that counsel on behalf of CIE had argued that the indemnity afforded to the Minister by that clause was expressly confined to the liability of the Minister under the workmen's compensation codes. Counsel for An Post submitted at the words "action suit" were not apt to describe applications under the workmen's compensation code and must have been intended to refer to common law proceedings.

The court was, said Mr Justice Keane, essentially concerned with ascertaining the intention of the parties. He remarked that while it was to be expected that the Minister would stipulate CIE should continue to be responsible for sums, payable under the workmen's compensation code, no reason had been suggested as to why CIE should have accepted liability for accidents which were due to the negligence of the Minister. While Mr Justice Keane accepted that "actions suits" were more apt to describe common law proceedings than, applications under the workmen's compensation code, he felt that this was too fragile a basis for adopting a construction of the provision which imputed to the parties an intention which there was no reason to suppose they had.

In addition Mr Justice Keane pointed out that this provision had been inserted for the benefit of the Minister; and applying the principle laid down in Roscommon County Council v Waldron [1963] IR 407, he concluded that it had been undoubtedly for the Minister to ensure that the provision had the extended meaning which his successors now sought to attach to it.

Solicitors: Michael Carroll for CIE; Donald O'Stewart for An Post.