POL00069722
POL00069722
Nicola McSherry
From: mandy.talbott,_
Sent: 17 November 2006 11:39
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Re: FW: Post Office -v- Castleton
Noted. Its frustrating given that hopefully the settlement will be concluded shortly. What steps do you plan
taking?
Mandy Talbot
Dispute Resolution
Company Secretary's Office
Royal Mail Legal Services
148 Old Street
London EC1V 9HQ
Postline:, GR
To: <mandy.ti
ce: “Tom Beezer"
~ "Richard Morgan"
17/11/2006 11:08 <martyn. mitchell
Subject: FW: Post Office -v- Castleton
Dear Mandy,
Please see below from Castleton's solicitor. I have spoken to him and chased him to sign the consent order. He
is going to call Mr Castleton's GP today to check that Castleton has the mental capacity to give him instructions at
the time of their without prejudice save as to costs letter dated 10 November. He will then update me.
In view of settlement discussions, we have deliberately paused on trial preparation to minimise costs. However,
unless we receive a signed Consent Order today I reluctantly think we must gear up to trial so that we are in a
position to proceed in December.
For what it is worth, I think this case will almost certainly settle shortly, but there is no absolute guarantee.
I will update you when I hear further.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
DDI:
Sent: 17 November 2006 10:41
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: Post Office -v- Castleton
POL00069722
POL00069722
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Dilley
I refer to your voicemail message left yesterday evening.
I tried to speak to my client yesterday but was again unable to do so.
I am now endeavouring to speak to his GP directly as a matter of urgency to find out what the position is
regarding his medical condition and whether or not it can properly be said to imapair his ability to provide me with
instructions.
Iam very conscious of the issue of your counsel's brief fee and the need to conclude this matter at the very
earliest opportunity. I will hopefully be able to revert to you later today.
Regards,
Mark Turner
Solicitor
Commercial Group
Rowe Cohen Solicitors
nooo Original Message--
From: Stephen Dilley:
Sent: 15 November 2006 1
To: Mark Turner
Subject: Post Office -v- Castleton
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Turner,
Thanks for your email of today.
I attach a signed, amended Tomlin Order (3 hard copies to follow by DX) and can confirm that to settle this today,
the P.O is willing in principle to agree to:
1. The "no dishonesty" suggested wording you put forward in your email below. This is now incorporated into the
Tomlin Order.
2. The suggested wording of the Mr Castleton's letter to the P.O withdrawing his allegations about Horizon that
you put forward on 14 November which states:
"I, Mr Lee Castleton, the former subpostmaster at Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington, fully and unreservedly
withdraw the allegations I have made about the operation of the Horizon system. I undertake not to repeat those
allegations and/or make any further allegations about the Horizon system and/or its functioning.”
This too has been incorporated into the Tomlin Order.
3. Your suggested amendment to the wording of the Tomlin Order i.e the insertion of the words "except as
otherwise previously ordered by the
court" to preserve the costs order being made on the way. I have inserted
this into paragraph 3.
I have inserted the dates when Mr Castleton's payment of the claim, interest and interim costs on account should
be made as being Friday 8
December 2006. This is actually 23 days from today.
We have also calculated interest on the claim to 8 December 2006 (calculations attached). It is £3,917.42. This
figure is incorporated into the Order at paragraph 2 of the Schedule.
Provided the Tomlin Order is acceptable to Mr Castleton, please sign, date and return the 3 hard copies as a
2
POL00069722
POL00069722
matter or urgency, or alternatively, please confirm that you will now file them directly Court for approval and
sealing and ask the Court to vacate the trial date.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and.en_behalf.of.Bond Pearce LLP
DDT nnn! SI
Main office
Fax: ¢
www.bondpearce.com
Original Me:
From: M.Turn!
Sent: 15 Nove
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Post Office -v- Castleton
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Dilley
I refer to our conversation earlier today. As discussed, I am writing to you in relation to the proposed wording of
the Tomlin Order to settle these proceedings and the two letters to pass between the parties even though I am
currently without instructions in that regard for the reasons set out in my earlier e-mail. The proposals put
forward in this e-mail are subject to revision when I am able to speak to my client and obtain his instructions and
are put forward in the meantime at your request and in an effort to try to move matters along pending my
receiving those instructions.
We sent to you yesterday a revised proposed form of wording in terms of the confirmation to be provided by my
client of the withdrawal of his allegations in relation to Horizon. For the reasons I set out when we spoke, I think it
is almost certain that my client will be unwilling to agree your original proposed form of wording. I shall give some
further thought to whether there is an “intermediate” form of wording that may be acceptable to both parties but,
as things stand, I do not think it is likely that my client will go so far as actively confirming that he accepts that
the system functions correctly.
In terms of the letter to be sent by your client in relation to the "no dishonesty" issue, I would propose (without
having had an opportunity to discuss with my client whether there is any particular form of wording that he woud!
prefer) the following form of wording:
"The Post Office confirms that no allegation of dishonesty is or has been made against Mr Lee Castleton in claim
number HQ 05 X 02706, arising from his tenure as sub-postmaster at Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington. The
claim brought by the Post Office was a claim for Mr Castleton to make good a shortfall showing in the accounts of
the Marine Drive Post Office pursuant to his contractual obligations."
There is no particular magic to this form of words - the point is merely to convey that your client has not and does
not assert in these proceedings that Mr Castleton has acted dishonestly. I am happy to discuss an alternative form
of wording if you have an issue with that which is proposed, subject only to it making clear that particular point.
In relation to your draft Tomlin Order, the only comment I have is that paragraph 3 of the Order itself should
insert (probably after "...and the
Counterclaim") "except as otherwise previously ordered by the court". This specifically preserves the interim costs
orders that have been made along the way.
As I indicated in my e-mail earlier, I shall endeavour to obtain instructions from my client on these points as soon
as I possibly can.
Regards,
Mark Turner
Solicitor
Commercial Group
Rowe Cohen Solicitors
POL00069722
POL00069722
<font size=1 color=#650012>
SOBRE ESSE ESIC IEDC OS CIOSIOS IE IOEOBIORII IKI IDA ISI ISKI IK AGRAGEACEACK AGRA AGRA
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may contain information that is legally
privileged and/or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any unauthorised
use, disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it, or other use is prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you receive this email in error please contact the sender immediately and delete this email from your
system. Copyright in this email and any attachments created by Rowe Cohen belongs to Rowe Cohen. The
contents of this email may be intercepted monitored and/or recorded. Neither Rowe Cohen nor the sender
accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan the email and any attachments. If this
message is transmitted over the internet be aware that it may be intercepted by a third party for which Rowe
Cohen exclude any liability in negligence or otherwise.
JESS ORES OSI OSE OE OKO E EOC CE IE SOCIO IEOCIOKIO SESS ORI IRI IKI ARACI RISK ISI IAA ARIA DEA
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Quay House
Quay Street
Manchester M3 3JE
Also at London™
Partners:
S.E. Cohen - D.J. Horwich - I.N. Lewis - M.V. Hymanson - G.P. Small
- A. Dennison - B.T. Coghlan - J.V. Dwek A. Farley - A. Sacks - A.
Taylor - M. Woodall - R. Sproston - A. Curwen - S. Room - R. Myer
- H. Burns - S, Sutton This firm is regulated by the Law Society </font>
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged and protected
by law. The intended recipient only is authorised to access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete any copies. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication is prohibited.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission.
You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Bond Pearce LLP accepts no liability
for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses.
Bond Pearce LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered Office: 3 Temple Quay, Temple Back East, Bristol, BS1 6DZ.
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Any reference to a Partner in relation to Bond Pearce LLP
means a Member of Bond Pearce LLP.
Bond Pearce LLP is regulated by the Law Society.
JOS OBIS ORES ERO O DEERE ICCD OKIOKOSE SE ISISSI SESS RIGK RIAA
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication.
If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system.
SEBS OS OREO EI OIE RI OROCE KORO CACO IC OKOCE EOD SDI OSIRIS AS RASKASRACAEAK