4 .
io
et,
é
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HQ05X02706
QUE BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant
~and-
LEE CASTLETON
Defendant
CLAIMANT’S SKELETON
ON CMC TO BE HEARD
ON MONDAY 23" OCTOBER 2006
1. This is the skeleton argument of the Claimant (“C”) on the hearing of its
application for a case management conference (“CMC”).
2. This action was transferred from Scarborough County Court of its own motion
on 14" September 2005. The trial of this action is set down for a 5 day
hearing! to commence in a 5 day window from 4" December 2006. Subject to
one issue about whether the High Court is the appropriate venue, the Claimant
presently wishes to keep the trial date if possible.
3. Chas sought this CMC so as to obtain effective and proportionate directions to
take this action to trial on 4" December 2006, A witness statement explaining
the present procedural position appears behind tab 12 in bundle 2, p.77 et seq.
4. Now set out below are short explanations of the relief sought:
' C considers that a 5 day estimate is somewhat optimistic, but enquiries have suggested that the Court
could accommodate a 10 day hearing, which should be sufficient. C’s Counsel’s best estimate for the
Jength of the trial is presently 7 days.
POL00069618
POL00069618
POL00069618
POL00069618
Permission to Amend
a. D consents to the C’s amended Particulars of Claim and Reply and
Defence to Counterclaim on the usual terms, as evidenced in a letter to be
shown to the Court.
Inspection
b. The Defendant (“D”) exchanged his list of documents on 19" May 2006.
C sought to inspect those documents, but D was unable to provide
inspection of certain documents (now excluding the listed cash accounts).
C now seeks an order for inspection of those documents identified in the
schedule to its application notice (bundle 2, tab 9, page 65). D’s position
is set out in his solicitors’ letter of 11" August 2006 (bundle 2, tab 12,
pages 105 & 106). C is entitled to inspect documents in D’s list and is
entitled to a copy pursuant to CPR 31.15(c) and C seeks an Order to that
effect in relation to the documents identified in the schedule.
Witness Statements
c. By letter dated 16" October 2006? C invited D to state whether he is
ready willing and able to exchange witness statements. D seeks some
further time. C invites the Court to direct that witness statements of
witnesses of fact be exchanged on or before 4pm on Friday 27" October
2007.
Experts
d. Pursuant to the Order of Master Fontaine (bundle 1, tab 5, p.37) the
parties have permission to rely on the evidence of experts in the fields of
accounting and information technology. This expert evidence is meant to
go to D’s assertion that in some way the losses recorded by him were not
real losses. C has sought clarification of the way D intends to make his
case but still does not understand how D says losses did not in fact occur
(see D’s Further Information at bundle 1, tab 4, p.17 to p.29). The cost of
expert evidence is high (even more so in a case worth only some
? Bundle 2, tab 13, p.131.
£25,000) and D’s statements of case do not enable C’s experts to be
instructed to focus on any particular aspects of thousands of transactions
conducted within the relevant period. D accepts that sequential exchange
is desirable. In the circumstances C invites the Court to direct that there
be sequential exchange of experts’ reports within a timetable that allows
C some time to respond, alternatively that there be no expert evidence at
the trial, given that it is now so late and D does not seem to have any
expert evidence ready to advance.
Venue
e.
The claim in the action is worth in the region of £25,000, whilst the
counterclaim appears at best to have nominal value. C thinks it prudent
to invite the Court to consider whether the High Court is the appropriate
venue for such a trial on grounds of the quantum of the claim alone.
Weighing against a transfer are the facts that the case is already on
transfer and that the factual issues, if explored to their fullest extent,
might involve serious allegations being made by D against C in relation
to the operation of its business. However, C does not press the Court for
a transfer but simply invites the Court to consider the position as part of
C’s duties to the Court.
RICHARD MORGAN
Maitland Chambers,
7 Stone Buildings,
Lincoln’s Inn,
London WC2A 3SZ
POL00069618
POL00069618
POL00069618
POL00069618
Claim No: HQ05X02706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant
-and-
LEE CASTLETON
Defendant
CLAIMANT’S SKELETON
ON CMC TO BE HEARD
ON MONDAY 23" OCTOBER 2006