LCAS0000295
LCAS0000295
I
Amended Particulars of Claim by Order of Master Torre dated 238 Ockcber QOOE
HE COURT OF E CLAIM NO : HQO5X02706
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Jaimant
And !
MR LEE CASTLETON
Defendant
AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
1. The Claimant, formerly known as Post Office Counters Limited, has at all material times operated -
Post Offices throughout England and Wales providing banking, postal and other services to the
public. The Defendant owns premises at 14 South Marine Drive, Bridlington, YO15 3DB (“Marine
Drive”) in which a Post Office is located.
2. As evidenced by his signed Acknowledgement of Appointment, on 18" July 2003 the Defendant
accepted an appointment as sub-postmaster for the Marine Drive Post Office (“the PO”) under the
standard terms of contract for that position (“the Contract”). A copy of the Acknowledgement of
Appointment and the Contract are appended hereto at Appendix 1. The Defendant held that
appointment, operated the PO and held funds as agent of the Claimant until his agency was
suspended at the end of the day on 23 March 2004, after which the PO was operated by other
agents.
3. As set out in clause 1 of Section 1 of the Contract the Defendant became an agent for the
Claimant pursuant to a contract for services. Accordingly in addition to the terms of the Contract
the Defendant owed the Claimant the further duty identified in paragraph 5 below.
4. The following were express terms of the Defendant’s contract for services:
(1) By clause 5 of Section 1 of the Contract the Defendant was required to accept full
responsibility for the proper running of his sub office and the efficient provision of those Post
Office services which are required to be provided there, and retention of his appointment was
2A_1216359_1 1 _
LCAS0000295
LCAS0000295
dependent on the sub-office being well managed and work being performed properly to the
satisfaction of the Claimant;
(2) By clause 2 of Section 12 of the Contract the Defendant was permitted to hold the Claimant’s
cash normal to meet payments at the PO after due allowance has been made for expected
receipts and in accordance with official accounting and security instructions;
(3) By clause 4 of Section 12 the Contract the Defendant was obliged to ensure that accounts of
all stock and cash entrusted to him by the Claimant were kept in the form prescribed by the
Claimant and he was obliged to produce such accounts immediately whenever requested by a
person duly authorised by the Claimant;
(4) By clause 5 of Section 12 of the Contract the Defendant agreed that he was strictly
responsible for the safe custody of cash, stock of all kinds and the Claimant’s other property,
papers and documents, whether held by himself or any of his assistants
(5) By clause 12 of Section 12 of the Contract the Defendant agreed that he was responsible for
all losses caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error, and also for all losses I
caused by his assistants, and he further agreed to make good without delay any deficiencies
due to such losses;
(6) By clause 14 of Section 12 of the Contract the Defendant agreed that his financial {
responsibility did not cease when he relinquished his appointment and that he would make
good any losses incurred during the term of his appointment which might subsequently come
to light;
(7) By clause 2 of Section 15 of the Contract the Defendant agreed to make good any deficiency
of cash or stock which might result from the actions of his assistants; and
(8) By clause 3 of Section 22 of the Contract the Defendant agreed to be responsible for ensuring
that transactions were carried out accurately, that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent
fraud and that all documentation was properly completed and despatched at the due time.
5. By reason of his position as an agent of the Claimant holding its money, in addition to the express
contractual duties identified above the Defendant owed the Claimant an equitable duty to account
to the Claimant for its money.
6. In accordance with the Claimant’s standard requirements, the Defendant was obliged accurately
to enter all transactions on the Claimant’s computer system and retain and collate appropriate
supporting documentation. From this information the Defendant was obliged (amongst other
things) to, and did, complete various daily and weekly financial reports, including weekly Final
Balance Lists and Cash Accounts (Final).
1A_1226359_1 2 4
LCAS0000295
LCAS0000295
7. From the week ending 21 January 2004 (week 43 in the Claimant's business calendar) until the
week ending 17 March 2004 (week 51) the Defendant produced weekly Balance Lists that showed
increasing losses of the Claimant’s money giving rise to deficiencies in funds held by the
Defendant to the Claimant’s account. For the same period the Defendant also personally
produced, signed off on and submitted to the Claimant Cash Accounts (Final) showing losses by
him of the Claimant’s money rising from £4,230.97 in week 43 to a total of £22,963.34 in week
51.
8. The said Cash Account (Final) for week 51 signed by the Defendant and submitted to the Claimant
is an account stated behind which the Defendant is not entitled to go and accordingly the
Defendant owes the sum of £22,963.24 to the Claimant.
9. From 18 March 2004 until his suspension on 23 March 2004 the Defendant continued to enter
transactions on the Claimant’s computer system. On 23 March 2004 following completion of an
audit by the Claimant a final Balance List was produced and this showed that the there was a total
deficiency of £25,758.75 in the funds that the Defendant should have been holding on behalf of
the Claimant. Accordingly the Defendant owed the Claimant the sum of £25,758.75 on the
running account with the Claimant maintained by the Defendant.
10. At the meeting on 23 March 2004 between Catherine Oglesby of the Claimant and the Defendant
the Defendant was asked to make good the said loss of £25,758.75.
11. After production of the Balance List on 23 March 2004, on 24 March 2005 further entries were
required to be taken into the account in relation to the sale of National Lottery tickets and the
payment of prizes in relation thereto that had occurred on 23 March 2004. These entries
disclosed that sales of £176 of National Lottery products had been made on 23 March 2004 that
did not appear on the Balance List, but against this there was an allowance of £75.80 in respect of
prizes paid out. Accordingly a further adjustment to the account of £100.20 was required.
12. In the circumstances there was a total deficiency in the Claimant’s funds held by the Defendant in
the amount of £25,758.75.
13. Thereafter the Claimant demanded payment of the said sum of £25,758.75 under cover of its
solicitors’ letter dated 20 April 2005.
14, Despite demand, and whether pursuant to the taking of the said accounts alternatively in breach
of the terms of the contract aforesaid, by reason of which the Claimant has suffered equivalent
loss and damage, alternatively in breach of the Defendant’s equitable duty to account to the
Claimant for its funds, the Defendant has failed to make good the loss of £25,858.95 alternatively
has failed or neglected to pay the said sum of £25,858.95.
15. Further the Claimant is entitled to and claims interest on all sums found due and owing to it as
aforesaid pursuant to section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 alternatively compensation in
1A_1216359_1 3 5
LCAS0000295
LCAS0000295
equity akin to interest at such rate or rates, for such period or periods and with such rests as may
to the Court seem just or appropriate.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:
(1) £25,858.95;
(2) Alternatively damages for breach of contract;
(3) interest as aforesaid.
RICHARD MORGAN
Statement of Truth
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Statement of Case are true.
1am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement.
Skepbe BLA N ne
Position or otic hak held: Colic. der I
Dated this
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth
PL1 3AE
Ref : LRB1/348035.134
2A_1216359_1 4 ~ 6