Summer heat is no excuse for late MaltaPost deliveries – Court

MaltaPost has lost an appeal against a €10,159 compensation demand for missed delivery targets, with the Court of Appeal rejecting all seven grounds raised by the postal operator in a dispute dating back to 2020.

Judge Lawrence Mintoff upheld the Administrative Review Tribunal’s December 2025 decision and ordered MaltaPost to pay the costs of the appeal.

The case concerned local ordinary mail deliveries during the financial year covering October 2018 to September 2019. MaltaPost achieved a next-working-day delivery rate of 93.21%, falling short of the 95% target set by the Malta Communications Authority.

The company exceeded its separate two-working-day target, achieving 98.1% against the required 98%.

The MCA demanded compensation in August 2020 under a collective compensation scheme. The amount was calculated using the turnover of the affected postal service and the shortfall against its delivery target.

MaltaPost challenged the demand, arguing that excessive summer temperatures affected deliveries and that it had not been given an adequate opportunity to submit before the regulator acted.

The court rejected that account, pointing to correspondence and meetings through which the company had presented its case.

MaltaPost had sought concessions covering 65 working days during the summer. The judgment cited evidence of two heatwaves, each lasting three days, in June and July 2019.

The court concluded that the circumstances did not establish force majeure excusing the company’s failure to meet its obligations. It also found that MaltaPost had not been proactive in supplying requested information about alternative working practices to protect employees from summer heat.

Correspondence reproduced in the judgment showed that delivery performance was already below target by March 2019, before the summer period.

The proceedings nevertheless recorded concerns about postal workers’ conditions. Union testimony described pressure to continue deliveries, while an occupational health and safety representative discussed changing working hours to avoid peak heat.

MaltaPost also challenged the performance study’s treatment of its statistical margin of error and relied on a later revision linked to conflicting postal addresses. Those arguments were rejected.

The court upheld the distinction between compensation and an administrative fine, rejecting MaltaPost’s challenge to the amount demanded.

The ruling leaves the compensation demand standing more than six years after it was issued.