POL00081865
POL00081865
Page 1 of 1
Stephen Dilley
From:
Stephen Dilley
Sent:
09 January 2007 15:59
To:
mandy.talbot GRO
Ce:
"Richard Morgan'; Tom Beezer
Attachments: eCopy scanned document.pdf
Dear Mandy,
Thanks for your email of 8 January.
I have told Mr Castleton that we will let him cross examine Ruth Simpson and Anne
Chambers
again provided that costs be in the case (i.e whoever loses the trial in principle has
to pay the
assessed costs). He is not willing to agree that (see attached fax - I suspect he is
getting some
informal legal advice).
My view is that despite our concern that his questions will be irrelevant, we have
tried to
accommodate him by recalling these witnesses. Its almost as though he wants us to
oppose his
a pplication so that he can then say he didn't have a fair go.
I propose to ring him and say that unless he is willing to agree that costs be in the
case, then
we will oppose his application to resume the trial and will not have the witnesses
present on
Thursday. Do you agree?
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
www. bondpearce.com
POL00081865
POL00081865
09/01/2007
Page 1 of2
~ J
Shen Dilley
From:
Stephen Dilley
Sent:
09 January 2007
"Richard Morgan'
Subject: RE: Draft Skeleton for Approval
Thanks Richard.
J ust a few minor comments:
1. On p48 at D of the transcript for 13 Dec 06, Anne Chambers says that when she looked
at
the Tivoli log she saw "Nothing out of the Ordinary. I saw the event which gave rise to
that one
call that we decided is completely irrelevant..." I wonder if we should mention this in
your
skeleton? I'll leave it to your discretion.
2. Para 15, should we say we don't object either "subject to the question of costs", or
"subject
to costs being in the case"?
3. There's a typo in para 15 - hambers instead of Chambers
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
DDI
RO
Main office phone:
Fax: GRO
www.bo_ndpearce, com
om: Richard Morgan } GRO
Sent: 09 January 2007 16:27
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Draft Skeleton for Approval
7 STONE BUILDINGS LINCOLN'S INN LONDON WC2A 3SZ
POL00081865
POL00081865
TELEPHONE, GRO GRO
fwww.maitlandchambers.com
maitiand
CHAMBER S
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE
This email and any attachments to it are confidential and intended solely for the
person to whom they are
addressed. They may contain privileged and confidential information. if you are not the
intended recipient
you must not read, copy, or distribute this message or its attachments, and you must
not discuss its
contents or take any action in reliance on its contents. Unauthorised use, disclosure
or copying is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please
contact us immediately by
replying to the sender, and delete it and any attachments from your computer. Thank
you.
VIRUS DISCLAIMER
The messaging system from which this e-mail was sent is checked regularly for viruses.
However no
liability is accepted for any viruses which may be transmitted in or with this e-mail.
Your opening, reading or
making any use of this message and of any attachments) is entirely at your own risk.
Stephen,
Any comments?
Richard
99/01/2007
Z~'d
LO00Z-Ndt-60
TTSZ@zZ9 z9cid
772E
,~omoers or bona v.arcc ~s oD~~ ~e~ in~PKtion at me ..gioioroa amce.~i(epu e.~~
-_113768]_1
POL00081865
POL00081865
FROM
PuhJD FEA~r_E LLF ~i YMOUTH
TO
9o0i~62672~z25
oond Paereo li:v
6ailare Meuea ,
WesC Moe 0.uod
DiymoVYh PL1 3AR
~3 T-nuary 2097
&Post
PRIVATE AND CONPipEN7IAL
Mr L Castleton
GRO —
DX €151 Plymoue:
stephen. dt11P
POL00081865
POL00081865
Qtr re(:
5]D3/KAK21] 4/07y~134
yYDUr r9f;
Gear Sir
Post Offict Limited v Yourself
Claim number NQObxQ2Z706
Thank you for you' letter dated 5 January 2007 antl received today.
We do not accept that the Yivoli lag contradicts Mrs Bimpson's evidence with respect to
her adlons on i
A pril 2004, or that even iP IL* does, this has "a serious impact on the Integrity of
the system! and the
balances"(or indeed any impact at all). Tt is irrelevant to the outcome of this case
end In any even!, you
were Suspended on 23 March 200 ,
Similarly, Mrs Chambers previously stated in evidence that when she examined tho TIYo~(
Event log at the
me she savo "nothing ouC Gf the ordinary, only the event Chat gave rise to ehe one
thing'that Is
srelevant", We therefore doubt that you can reblly wise any new relevant polrts with
her,
It is not even clear that the Tivoli Log
should be disclosed
s within the category of documents that
pursuant to CPR 31.6. In the circumstances, we remain concerned about the cost,
proporti0~ality and
relevance of r~~alling witnesses that have already been released. However, we have
6poke~ to both Mrs
Simpson and Ms Chambers who state that they would be willing to attend Court on 11
Janu~ty 20p7.
P.cc~rdingly, we will ask them to be there and we will nOt oppose your application,
provided Chat iPthe
j~~dge gives permission for them to be cross examined again;
(a)
you complete their gross examination on the day; and
(b)
the costs of your application should be in the caée.
Pleasq confirm khat you agree to p~inte (a) and (b) above.
We are copying this Pax to the Court and look fgrward to hearing from you as soon as
pos~fble.
POL00081865
POL00081865
Yours faithPWiy
Bond Pearce ALP
Cc Sarah Landau, Clerk to HHJ HavQry ~C
Qnnd Pee rcO 1L~, a UmR~d Ll~blilb ParF~~.yhlP. R~p i.C~reE In ~n IanO BnA Wi}I!S
eumD~c OC311~:il
(lgy Ialer eJ ulll~y. ~ It~+~y~a fubDr le: ~~I-LCI Ub] 1.Gd. VP.I
nJhl0s~'bU1RJ U-~U[ Ui.
ll it f1iIl1
N~ 1 ~lii
11i'
~L ~\I II SxNI
TO~33dd
OO6E SZb Sb80~01
TTSZBZZS-~GZ1I0
a en
Od+~£1I~iQ+~NI~H~J~w02~~ 5T Si LO-10-60
89-
87 15=1b FROM~MARIhJE+DRIVE+PO
$1262-57282511
PAGE: 02
1i/it.
9TH January 2007.
Dear Stephen,
I am writing in reply to your letter dated 8~*
January 2007.
Thank you for not. opposing my application to re-open this case
with reference to the 'Tivoli Lod. Whilst I understand your co~lcern
with reference to cost and. proportionality, I am perplexed by your
issue with relevance. Ms. Chambers told the court that in her opinion
it was relevant, having now had sight ofthe document 1 believe that it
has relevance. I am of course glad. that both witnesses have indicated
there intentions to attend.
nally with respect la;
a,of your letter 8~' January 2007. I can of course confirm that
my questions to he put to each witness will last no longer than 45
minutes each witness.
b, As I'm sure you understand, I would not have had to make
this application had any document that your witness intended to use
in evidence been disclosed to all parties. Having considered your
request for "costs in the case".1 see no reason that the costs should
be in the case and believe that this should be a matter for the Court.
Yo
F "thfully
Lee Casdeton.
D9-JAN-200
POL00081865
POL00081865