POL00070029
POL00070029
Page 1 of 2
Stephen Dilley
From: Gareth Kagan on behalf of Stephen Dilley
Sent: 16 January 2007 13:28
To: ‘mandy.talbo'
Subject: Draft Judgment: P.O -v- Castleton
Attachments: JT Post Office v Castleton drit.doc
Dear Mandy,
I refer to our telephone conversation this afternoon.
The Court has sent to us a draft copy of the judgment that will be formally handed down on
Monday (copy attached). As it is embargoed, please don't disclose it to anybody else for the
time being.
lam delighted to confirm that we have obtained judgment in the full amount of the claim i.e.
£25,858.95, (This even includes the Lottery claim of £100.20 that we thought was the weaker
part of our case). The key points arising from the judgment are as follows:
1. The Court decided that the burden of proof lies on the sub-postmaster to show that the
account was wrong.
2. The Judge considered in detail all the assertions Mr Castleton made about Horizon. He
found no flaw with the system.
3. The Judge found that the Post Office's witnesses were reliable. In particular, he mentions
Anne Chambers (Fujitsu), Andrew Wise, Michael Johnson, Helen Rose and Ruth Simpson.
4, The Judge stated that he was satisfied that the substantial unexplained deficiencies which
occurred in weeks 42 to 51 and in week 52 and to the close of business on 22 March 2004 “are
real deficiencies and as such are irrefutable evidence that Marine Drive was not properly
managed at the material time... the losses must have been caused by his own error or that of
his assistants."
5. The Judge dismissed Mr Castleton's counter claim.
The Judgment is carefully reasoned and it will be difficult for Mr Castleton to successfully appeal
it should he decide to seek permission to appeal.
The P.O now has a judgment which shows there was no problem with the Horizon system and
which it can use as a precedent in future cases where sub-postmasters raise similar
allegations. Counsel describes it as a "slam dunk."
On Monday the Court will decide how much interest to award on the judgment plus the question
of costs. As previously discussed, the Court may decide to fix the Post Office's costs at a
certain level because the costs exceed the amount at stake, but we will of course put forward
strong arguments to try to ensure that the P.O is awarded as much of its costs as possible. In
particular, we beat our CPR Part 36 offer and Mr Castleton turned down the opportunity to
mediate, both of which count in our favour.
I will update you after Monday's hearing.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
16/01/2007
POL00070029
POL00070029
Page 2 of 2
Solicitor
16/01/2007