No limit on mail claim for errant delivery

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday the postal law was unconstitutional in setting limits on seeking damages when registered mail is mistakenly delivered

Article 17 of the Constitution guarantees “redress as provided for by law from the state or public entity.” At issue is the case of a finance company in Nishinomiya, Hyogo Prefecture, that sued the government over a registered letter that arrived late at the intended recipient

The letter was a court order to seize the assets of a debtor

The finance company said the court order was supposed to have been sent to a bank where the debtor held an account, and to the office address of the debtor

The letter instead ended up in the bank’s post office box, without benefit of a return receipt, which is standard practice. Delivery of the letter came to the attention of bank officials later, according to the suit

Meanwhile, the debtor learned about the court order and withdrew an estimated 7.9 million yen from the bank, according to the suit

The finance firm sued the government for the same amount

But in lower court proceedings, the government cited the postal law, which says the state is not responsible for problems resulting from misdelivery of registered and other special-delivery mail as long as it is not lost or destroyed

The law stipulates that damages should be paid when registered or other certified mail is lost or damaged, among other conditions, the government argued

But the Supreme Court’s 15-member grand bench unanimously ruled the limitation on damages was unconstitutional

The court said: “Registered mail must be delivered correctly and precisely. This case may be a delivery error, but the state must be held responsible for damages.” The government said the limit on liability was to ensure equitable, reasonably priced mail delivery

The suit will return to the Osaka High Court