Adv. Gill Nadel, Moran Shmilovich

Recently, the Magistrate’s Court of Hadera discussed the question of the liability of the Postal Authority in the field of providing banking services.

The case involved a client of the Postal Bank who order checkbooks from the banks, only to have these checkbooks sent to other people who used the checkbooks while forging the signature of the client, without his knowledge or consent.

One of the checks for 1500 NIS was honored by the Postal Bank, despite the fact that the withdrawal signature on the check was not that of the client, but a forged signature. In addition, most of the checkbooks were used. When the client became aware of this fact, he gave instructions to cancel the checkbooks, which lead to collection proceedings being taken against him regarding them. These proceedings caused the client, according to his claim, expenses and damages and therefore he referred to the court with an action against the Postal Authority.

As we know, the Postal Authority has statutory immunity against actions filed against it for erroneous delivery of mail. Beyond that, the extent of the liability of the Postal Authority for loss of mail is limited to 543 NIS. Similarly, an action for erroneous delivery of mail has a limitation period of one year. Based on these stipulations, the Postal Authority petitioned the court to dismiss the action filed against it.

The question discussed in this case is what is the extent of the liability regime applying to the Postal Authority when it sends checkbooks to account-holders like this client, while using the postal services of the Postal Authority, and when these checkbooks themselves were issued to the client while the Postal Authority’s operated not as a postal service, but in the banking services field?

The court ruled that regarding the Postal Bank services, the Customs Authority acted not in its capacity as a deliverer of mail to the recipient, but in a different capacity, which bears salient markers of a banking corporation.

Opening an account in the Postal Bank for a client, managing the account, issuing checkbooks that withdraw from the account, sending the checkbooks to clients, and charging the account via the check taken from these books- these are all located in the field of providing banking services and not in the field of providing postal services.

Therefore, the court found that it could not be ruled that the stipulation of the exemption and the limitation on liability upon which the Postal Authority relied in its claims can apply to these activities.

The court also ruled that the Postal Law differentiates between postal services and financial services provided by the Postal Authority. The court applies the regime of limited liability to the postal services provided by the Postal Authority, while for anything relating to financial services, a regular and wider regime applies. In our case- the Postal Law does not apply the stipulations regarding the period of limitation or the limited sum for which the Postal Authority can be sued to the financial services provided by the Customs Authority.

In light of the above, the court rejected the petition of the Postal Authority for dismissal of the action against it (for reasons of time limitation and limited liability) and left the action standing.

Civil Case 1520-08 Ganaim Subach Saba v. Ganaim Sobchai Machmud Atia. Decision given 3.12.09. Names of advocates not noted