LCAS0000624
LCAS0000624
61
LC0364.0001
LCAS0000624
LCAS0000624
Claim No: 5 SZ 00651
IN THE SCARBOROUGH COUNTY COURT
BETWEEN
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant
and
LEE CASTLETON
"5,
Defendant
DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
Defence
1, Paragraphs I to 5 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted.
2. As to paragraph 6 of the 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 however that the final audit, following which he was suspended
by the Claimant, took place on 23 March 2004. Upon his suspension, the Claimant
arranged for a temporary sub-postmaster to temporarily take over the Defendant’s
duties, In the premises, and without prejudice to the more general denial at paragraph
4 below, any apparent losses sustained after 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.
3, In relation to the figure of £1,256.88 pleaded at paragraph 6 as a loss relating to
“Automated products”, the Defendant avers that this relates to the erroneous double-
crediting of the sum to the National Savings & Investment Bank account of one Mrs
Dorothy Constable (which for the complete avoidance of doubt was not done by the
Defendant), which sum was repaid to the Claimant by Mrs Constable in January
2005. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant has any liability in respect of that
particular head of loss.
11
LC0364.0002
LCAS0000624
LCAS0000624
agraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
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, upon disclosure by the Claimant of the daily
balance snapshot documents created by the Defendant during the course of his tenure
as sub-postmaster at Marine Drive Post Office, and which were removed from the
post office on the Defendant’s suspension, he will be able to demonstrate through a
manual reconciliation of the figures contained within those snapshots that the
apparent shortfalls are in fact nothing more than accounting errors arising from the
operation of the Horizon system. The Defendant will plead further and more fully in
this regard following disclosure.
7. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Particulars of Claim are denied.
Counterclaim
8. The Defendant repeats paragraphs I to 7 above.
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:
Particulars
The Defendant is not yet fully able to particularise his counterclaim. However, the
broad heads of loss in respect of which the Defendant claims are as follow:
(a) loss of income as a sub-postmaster
12
LC0364.0003
LCAS0000624
LCAS0000624
diminution in capital value of the Defendant’s shop which previously shared
the same premises as Marine Drive Post Office; and
(c) loss of profits from the post office itself, and the associated reduction in
turnover at the Defendant’s shop as a result of the removal by the Claimant of
the post office franchise from the premises.
The Defendant is unable to quantify his counterclaim at this juncture but limits it to a
figure not exceeding £250,000.
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
1. Damages;
2. Interest
:
E
i
DATED 15 August 2005
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this statement of case are true.
Signed —iisieseeeesessesseeeeeeeeseeenes
Served by Rowe Cohen of Quay House, Quay Street, Manchester M3 3JE
(Ref: MDT.113969)
Solicitors for the Defendant
13
LC0364.0004
LCAS0000624
LCAS0000624
MARINE+DRIVE+PO 2 i iPAGE:01
AX! —d
‘diminution in capital value of the Dofendant’s shop which previously shared
\ the same premises as Marine Drive Post Office; and
(c) oss of profits from the post office itself, and the associated redustion in
j turnover at the Dofendant’s shop as 4 tosult of the removal by the Claimant of
the post offipe franuhise from the premises,
WL ‘The Défendant is unable to quantify his counterclaim at this juncture but limits it 10 a
figure not exceeding £250,000,
12. The Defendent also claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act
1984 én such sums and for such period as the court shall consider eppropriate.
AND the Defendant counterclaims
1
L. - Damages;
i
2. I Interest
DATED 15 August 2005
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
[believe thar the facts stated in this statement of wase arc true.
Pull wamer 1 BE Case .Gton
.. GRO
Served by Rowe Cohen of Quay Honse, Quay Street, Manchester M3 3JE
(Refi MDT,113969)
Solicitors for the Defendont
Boo
14
LC0364.0005