A toll operator on the MI motorway agreed to reduce tolls from midnight after a High Court judge ruled it was overcharging motorists and said that overcharging should stop.
In a decision with implications for other toll operators, Mr Justice Peter Kelly upheld arguments by the National Roads Authority of overcharging - said to amount to €26,000 weekly since January 1st last - by Celtic Roads Group (Dundalk) Ltd on the Gormanstown to Monasterboice stretch of the MI.
After the judge indicated he was prepared to grant the NRA an injunction directing the overcharging to stop unless CRG was willing to provide an undertaking to that effect, Maurice Collins SC, for CRG, said his client undertook the tolls would be reduced from midnight.
The judge granted a stay on his order for costs in favour of the NRA for three weeks to allow CRG consider the judgment and decide whether it would bring an appeal.
Mr Justice Kelly’s ruling is also expected to affect operators and motorists on the N8 Rathcormac/Fermoy by-pass; the N25 Waterford by-pass and the M4 Kinnegad-Enfield-Kilcock motorway.
The NRA had claimed CRG would overcharge motorists by some €1.39 million this year unless the M1 tolls were reduced and applied in late January to have its action against CRG fast-tracked by the Commercial Court.
Mr Justice Kelly agreed to do so after noting there was no mechanism for compensation of motorists if the NRA was correct about the overcharging. The case concluded on February 23rd and Mr Justice Kelly gave his reserved judgment today.
The case arose after a dispute between the NRA and CRG about the correct interpretation of the toll bye-laws for the M1. Those bye-laws came into force in June 2003 and contain regulations on calculation, charging and collection of tolls.
In drafting the bye-laws, “simplicity of computation” appeared “not to have counted for much in the NRA’s thinking”, the judge observed.
The case centred on construction of Regulation 14 of the bye-laws which provides for “appropriate tolls” and “maximum tolls”. The judge noted the Consumer Price Index (CPI) figured prominently in Regulation 14.
The CPI – used to calculate the maximum toll allowed – fell in 2009 for the first time in 50 years. The bye laws allow for a “cushion” of a year, so tolls did not fall then, but, after the CPI rose slightly in 2010, the NRA claimed the toll should have decreased from January 1st last.
The judge said it was for the court to construct any piece of legislation, including the bye-laws. Any representations by others, including the Minister for Transport and the NRA website which gave the impression the bye-laws provided only for upwards only toll increases, were “not relevant”, he said.
The first rule of statutory interpretation, the literal rule, was that statutes should be constructed according to the intention expressed in the legislation, he said.
Applying that rule to the various provisions of Regulation 14, he found it provided for the amount of tolls to be charged and for those tolls to be reviewed annually by reference to movements in the CPI measured in August each year.
There was nothing in Regulation 14 suggesting it was intended to provide only for upwards movements in tolls, he found.
He noted the CPI increased upwards every year from 1959 until August 2009 when it dropped. In August 2010, it showed a slight increase.
Because of the “cushion effect” provided for in Regulation 14.5 in the event of a decrease in the CPI, CRG was entitled to apply Regulation 14.5 and charge a toll of €1.90 per car for the year to end 2010 despite the maximum charge for that year being €1.80 per car, the judge said.
Once the CPI increased in 2010, even if by a small margin, Regulations 14.2 and 14.3 applied, meaning the maximum toll per car for the year from January 1st 2011 was €1.80 when CRG had charged €1.90.
While most people probably expected the CPI would increase annually, Regulation 14.5 specifically provided for circumstances where the CPI remains static or falls. If the NRA intended tolls could only be revised upwards, it could easily have said so in the bye-laws but it had not, he added.
While he noted the bye-laws required “careful reading”, he rejected claims by CRG they were obscure and ruled the NRA had properly applied them in this case.