LCAS0000294
LCAS0000294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HQO5X02706
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant
-and-
LEE CASTLETON
Defendant
FRONTSHEET TO AMENDED DEFENCE
AND COUNTERCLAIM
Although the Amended Defence and Counterclaim is unsigned, it has been agreed
between the Claimant and the Defendant that it should stand as the Defendant’s case
subject to the following amendment:
That the last line of paragraph 3 be changed to read ‘Week 52’ in place of ‘Week 51’,
The agreement is subject to the question of costs.
@7-NOU-2086,
LCAS0000294
LCAS0000294
Claim No: HQ05X02706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant
and
LEE CASTLETON
Defendant
AMENDED DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
Amended Defence
1 Paragraphs I to 5.6 of the Amended Particulars of Claim are admitted.
2. As to paragraph 6_7 of the Amended Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that by March
2004 there was an apparent shortfall in the account of Marine Drive Post Office of
£25,758.75. The Defendant avers-hewever that the final audit, following which he
was suspended by the Claimant, took place on 23 March 2004, at which the above
balance was produced by the Claimant's audit staff as a final figure before hand over,
Upon his suspension, at around 14.00 hrs, the Claimant arranged for a temporary sub-
postmaster to temporarily take over the Defendant's duties, who did so on 23 March
2004 by signing the P242 stock/cash account. In the premises, and without prejudice
lo the-mere-general-denia} matters set out_at paragraph 4_7D below, any apparent
losses sustained after around 14.00 hrs on 23 March 2004 (including the-pleaded loss
of £176 in relation to National Lottery game sales on 24 March 2004) are not
attributable to the Defendant.
3in-relation-to-the-fi ££4256-88-pleaded-at paragraph 6-a5-4 1oas relating to“ Awomated
: i fe 7256.88-p
productsthe-Defendant-aversthat this-relates-tethe-erroneous-double-crediting of
15:32 LITIGATION ” 38%
LCAS0000294
LCAS0000294
3. Tt_is further admitted that_the Defendant produced weekly Balance Lists _and
personally produced, signed off on and submitted to the Claimant Cash Accounts
(Final) as alleged in paragraph 7, save that the first week in which such alleged losses
eccurred was in week 42 and was for £1,103.88 , which the Defendant made good
and that the Defendant did not sien off on the Cash Account (Final) for week 51.
4, -Save as aforesaid, Pparagraph 7 of the Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. Such
alleged losses as the said weekly Balance Lists and Cash Accounts (Final) appeared
to show were illusory not real.
5. The Defendant repeatedly sought assistance from his managers within the Claimant
company during the period over which the apparent shortfall accumulated. No
assistance was forthcoming. The Defendant avers that any apparent shortfall is
entirely the product of problems with the Horizon computer and accounting system
used by the Claimant.
6. The Defendant further avers that,-upen-disel -by-the-Claimant-ef he will be able
to demonstrate through a manual reconciliation of the figures contained within the
daily balance snapshot documents created by the Defendant during the course of his
tenure as sub-postmaster at Marine Drive Post Office,-aad which were removed from
the post office on the Defendant’s suspension, that the apparent shortfalls are in fact
nothing more than accounting errors arising from the operation of the Horizon I
system.~FheDefendant-will-pleed-further-and-more—fully_in-this-segard_following I
i
disclosure.
7. Paragraphs-$-to-10-of the Partiowars-of Claim-are-denied: I
JA Paragraph 8 is denied. The said Cash Account (Final) for week 5] is not an account
stated behind which the Defendant is not entitled to go:
i) It does not constitute an absolute acknowledgement by the Defendant: and/or,
AP-NNU=2AAB 15:32 LITIGATION ” 98% P.@4
er-Nuv— Zu
7B
LCAS0000294
LCAS0000294
235 Sb 0 PRUIM UWE LUHEN SULICITURS WW WIY>2d25s048 P.US/B?
ii) All of the accounting in it was done by the Defendant and not the Claimant;
and/or,
iii) The Claimant does not allege that the account was approved by it; and/or,
iv) The Claimant does not allege that the account was entered by it as apreed in
its books nor recognised by it in some way as correct.
Paragraph 9 is admitted, save that the Defendant repeats his allegations in paragraphs
7c
3-6 above that the alleged deficiency was only apparent _and_not real and_that
accordingly it is denied that the Defendant owed the Claimant the sum alleged,
Paragraph 10 is admitted save that the existence of the alleged loss and the
7D
Defendant’s obligation to make it good is denied as set out in paragraphs 3-6 above.
No admissions are made as to the facts in paragraph 11, being matters that occurred
after the Defendant's suspension, and the Claimant is put to proof of them but the
Defendant's liability for them is denied. Having been suspended _as_set_out_in
paragraph 2 above, the Defendant had no way of transacting those matters and/or the
Claimant's temporary sub-postmaster_had_already assumed _responsibility for the
branch and/or the Claimant's audit staff had balanced the accounts prior to her doing
50.
Paragraph 12 is denied as set out in paragraphs 3-6 above.
TE
Parapraph 13 is admitted save that the Defendant's obligation to pay the said sum is
IG
denied as set out in paragraphs 3-6 above.
Paragraph 14 is denied, whether pursuant to the taking of an account or an equitable
7H
duty to account, for breach of contract or pursuant thereto and the Claimant is put to
proof of such loss and damage as it may have suffered as a result.
In the circumstances, the Claimant’s claim in paragraph 15, whether for interest or
equitable compensation akin to it, is denied.
Amended Counterclaim
The Defendant repeats paragraphs 1 to 7H of his Amended Defence above.
eninname 46+99 LITIGATION » ‘98%
P.@S
LCAS0000294
LCAS0000294
eee HUET ROWE LUMEN SULILI TURD: WW BlYoeddd 5008 P.B6/8?
9, The Defendant avers that the Claimant wrongfully terminated the Defendant’s
contract as a sub-postmaster following his suspension and that the true cause of the
apparent shortfall in the accounts of Marine Drive Post Office is the Claimant’s own
computer system not any misconduct or negligence on the part of the Defendant or
his assistant.
10. By reason of the Claimant’s wrongful termination of his contract, the Defendant has
suffered-and- continues-to-suffer loss and damage:
Particulars
ed ‘ally-abl i iso-hi i
TheDeferd: not-yet-fully to-pertioularise-h sierolaim—HowevertThe
bread heads of loss in respect of which the Defendant claims are is as follows:
(a) loss of income as a sub-postmaster_ £3,750 x3 = £11,250
i Fhe-Defendant-is unable tify-his-counterelaim-at this juncture-but- limits itte-o.
- quantify
4211 The Defendant also claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act
1984 on such sums and for such period as the court shall consider appropriate,
AND the Defendant counterclaims
lL. Damages;
2. Interest
DAFEDAS August 2005
10
OP-NAUI-DAAR 45: FV LITIGATION » 98% P.O6
ernuv-cuuD 1+ Or
A?-NNU-2AAB
FRUIT RUBE CUHEN SOLICITORS
Quay-Stzeet-Manchester M3338
Quay 7
TO 81752225358
RE-DATED 7 November 2006
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
ALEXANDER GOOLD
Lbelieve that the facts stated in this statement of case are true.
Full Name
Signed
Served by Rowe Cohen of Quay House, Quay Street, Manchester M3 3JE
(Ri DT.113969)
Solicitors for the Defendant
1S:RR
LITIGATION »
LCAS0000294
LCAS0000294
P8707
11
TOTAL P.@7
P.O?