Let me take you back to a time in which the market for delivery of letters was dominated by large national monopolies or former monopolies, and impatient potential entrants worried the incumbents. Oh wait; that’s today. Postal workers in various EU countries, unhappy at European plans (existing legislation here) to attain greater liberalisation in the postal market, held scattered strikes in Ireland, Belgium and Hungary, though there was little strike activity in France, and none at all in Germany, Poland and the UK.
But that’s also Ireland of the early 1980s, when a company called Paperlink sought to run a letter delivery service in Dublin. This contravened the Post Office’s monopoly on letter delivery conferred by section 34(2) of the Post Office Act, 1908; and in AG v Paperlink Ltd [1983] IEHC 1; [1984] ILRM 373 (15th July 1983) Costello J held that this monopoly did not infringe Paperlink’s constitutional right to communicate. The effects of his analysis, baleful for most of its existence but now pregnant with positive possibility, are the focus of my paper at this weekend’s conference on The Constitution at 70 (website | brochure (pdf)) organized by colleagues at the School of Law, TCD.
If you are coming along, please say hello.
I should, for completeness, observe that s34 of the 1908 Act has been repealed by the third schedule to the Postal and Telecommunications Act, 1983 (also here) and replaced by section 111 of the same Act.
Eoin,
I thought your presentation went well despite the problems with the remote control. I would comment also that I though David and Conor’s sessions were very well placed. Your brief dealing with an (albeit problematic) right, Davids dealing with the macro placement, vindication, ‘muddy water’ and sources and Conor singing from the other sheet to David but admittedly he didn’t seem to differ all that much.
Langwallners paper is of definite use for future discussion and I dare say submission. The A case and appeal is handled well.
Ronan