POL00083351
POL00083351
_ ~ Stephen Dilley
+
From: ¢)" john.hjones¢_
Sent: . 17 November 2005 1
‘O: Stephen Dillew.
Ce: mandy.talbot RO } cath.oglesby_
Subject: Re: FW: Urgent” The ‘Post Ottice -v- Lee Castieton (Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington)
Attachments: Marine Drive Appeal Case.doc.
Marine Drive Appeal
Case.doc (...
Stephen
I have attached my appeal report at the end of this e-mail for your information.
All documentation proner.to.the Marine Drive appeal was returned to the Area Intervention Office at Crown Street
,Darlington DL1 1AB ¢ GRO the contact at this office is the Contracts Manager , Lesley Joyce.
In answer to the questions you have directed to Cath here are my
responses:-
(i) The assumptions Mr Castleton makes, as well as those from his alleged ‘experts' simply do not hold credence.
As part of the appeal investigation I reconstructed the branch accounts for seventeen weeks as well as examined
every transaction entry over the critical periods when the losses being incurred were at their greatest.
The reconstruction of the accounts and the analysis of cash usage against the actual transaction being performed
at the branch did not reveal any discrepancies , apart from incorrect cash declarations.
The reconciliation of these accounts, the evidence obtained from customers depositing cash at the branch
demonstrated that Mr Castleton was making repeated false cash declarations.
On a number of occasions it was demonstrated that the physical cash that was proven to be in the branch , was
different from the cash that was being declared onto the Horizon system.
Additional tracking of all increases in cash ordered by the branch , demonstrated that the branch did not need to
order excessive amounts of cash that were not required to service the transactions that were being performed.
The orders for extra cash were always in week where there was a reported significant loss at the branch.
(ii) The lists of documents that I examined included all the branches cash accounts, the daily balance snapshots
and evidence in the branch from a customer who frequently deposited large sums of cash into the branch.
It would be most unusual for Subpostmasters to perform frequent balance snapshots throughout the trading
week. In my experience of hearing appeals, this practice is quiet common in proven theft cases.
(iii) The main frame computers of Post Office Ltd handle on line transactions performed by twenty eight million
customers each week at around sixteen thousand post office branches. We will keep records of the total accounts,
however the costs of extrapolating low level data would be significant , for a case that has already been
established 'on the balance of probability’.
(iv)
a) The extensive examination of the Horizon System at the time of the discrepancies, subsequent checks at
Fujitsu by myself as part of the appeal investigation as well as the examination of accounts of the system at the
branch have clearly demonstrated that there is nothing wrong with the Horizon system.
b) The transactions were entered into the Horizon system correctly, I conducted several searches with our error
resolution teams with only three minor errors being apparent over a significant period of time. This error rate was
significantly below what would have been expected at a branch that was recording significant account
discrepancies.
In summary, the decision to terminate the contract for services of Mr Castleton was sound and on the balance of
probabilities the cash was removed by a person or persons working within the branch.
(See attached file: Marine Drive Appeal Case.doc)
Hope this helps
POL00083351
POL00083351
*onn
:
Area Development Manager
Network Change
Post Office Ltd
Sales and Service
"Stephen Dilley"
Subject: FW: Urgent The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (Marine Drive Post
Office,
17/11/2005 15:22 Bridlington)
Dear Mr Jones,
lam a solicitor at Bond Pearce LLP and have recently taken over conduct of the Post Office's claim against Mr
Castleton. 1 understand form Ms Oglesby that you presided over his appeal against being dismissed in 2004. Is
this correct?
You will see the gist of Mr Castleton's defence from my email to Ms Oglesby below. In summary, he has obtained
2 expert's reports which state that the deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the fact that they
have been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system, despite the
suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily snapshot.
We need to obtain as much documentation as possible to ascertain whether there may be any truth in this
defence. Ms Oglesby believes that a full set of the documentation which was removed from the post office would
have been sent to you to deal with on appeal. Do you still have these documents? If so, please could you send
them to me?
Please could you also answer the questions that I have directed to Ms Oglesby below?
1 look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for an
DDI
Main office phon
Fax:
www. bondpeéarce.com
ce LLP
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 Novembs
To: cath.oglesby,
Cc: 'cheryl.wood'
Subject: Urgent The Posi
y ‘mandy.talbot_
ee Castleton (Marine
rive Post Office, Bridlington)
POL00083351
POL00083351
ear Ms Oglesby,
T have tried unsuccessfully to speak to you today.
Mr Castleton's solicitors are seeking the return of documents that they say you removed from the Marine Drive
Post Office when you did an audit. I understand that not all those can be found.
l attach copies of the following:-
(a) A without prejudice letter dated 30 September from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond Pearce;
(b) Bentley Jennison's Report dated 23 September and attachments; and
(c) White & Hoggard's report dated 18 August.
Bentley Jennison state that the deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the fact that they have
been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system, despite the
suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily snapshot. They have drawn this conclusion
through looking at the discrepancy of £3,509.18 on Thursday 26 February 2004. They then suggest that this
double accounting could have continued over a number of weeks and that as such, Mr Castleton's Defence,
“appears to hold potential merit based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed. White & Hoggard
reach a similar conclusion in their report.
Bentley Jennison seek:
(i) A full list of all the transactions carried out within the Post Office (he says that it is not good enough that
management information is not available simply because the "month end has been closed down".
(ii) The actual audit report you prepared. He says that the actual report would have been a manuscript writing
document rather than a typed document.
(iii) P and A Reports for weeks 39-52.
(iv) Cash and stock counts for when Mr Castleton began trading and when he stopped being a Post Office Sub-
Postmaster.
(vi) The events log for weeks 39 to 52.
(vii) Transaction log.
(viii) The daily snapshots.
Mr Castleton believes that if he can get these documents, he will be able to undertake a manual reconciliation of
the cash account in order to substantiate his belief that the losses are not real but attributable to computer error.
1. Do you believe the suggestion put forward by the experts could (at least in theory) be correct? If not, why
not?
2. Do you have a list of what documents you removed to do the audit? Is it normal for sub post office masters to
do daily snapshots?
3. Would it be possible to regenerate the above missing records from computer records at the Post Office? If
computer records are not kept centrally, would they be stored on the hard drives of the computers at the Marine
Post Office? If so, could you obtain them?
4. In an email from Fujitsu to Richard Benton dated 5 May 2004, Fujitsu stated "It is possible that they are not
accurately recording all transactions on the system. " If there have been human errors in recording the
transactions, could an explanation be that:
(a) there was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the information entered on to it; but
(b) if staff punched in the wrong numbers into Horizon, there may have been no real loss (even though Horizon
would show a loss) - it is simply an error in accurately recording transactions.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
POL00083351
POL00083351
“olicitor
GRO
www. bonapearce. corn”
—_—— Original Message-
From:
Cc: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Urgent Re: FW: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Hi Cath
Could you please contact Stephen Dilley at Bond Pearce Solicitors in relation to Lee Castleton formally of Marine
Drive Po. They need to know what documentation was removed from the office.
Hi Stephen
As you can see I have asked Cath to contact you but here is her number anyway
GRO
Thanks Cheryl.
SESS OSES IEA SESSA SIDI SSIS ICO IOI RISB ISIS AGRA ADI AARA AGAR AEA AAA
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.
JESS ISRO ROBO EIS GSS SEIS SSI RISE SEAGRASS IOI I OCIA AIACIA AAAI AACR
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: Bristol Bridge House, 138-141 Redcliff Street, Bristol,
BS1 6B).
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.
>>>> MULTIMEDIA_1077082.TIF attachment was removed from this email <<<<
JE EE ISIS IE OSI TOCA TODOS OS OKI BISIORIIGKI OA IOIOREASEISRITISEICR I AACA GRACIA
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.
JESSIE ORI RIES OE OSORIO IE IOS OE IOS AG EAC AACR ARACEAE AAA
POL00083351
POL00083351
Appeal against Summary Termination of Contract
Mr Lee Castleton Marine Drive
Mr Lee Castleton
14 South Marine Drive
Bridlington
YO15 3DB
Date of suspension: 23 March 2004.
Date of termination of contract: 17 May 2004.
Details of charge: The branch incurred a twelve week period of large
unexplained losses, which were not made good. The Subpostmaster blames
the Horizon computer system for these losses, however no evidence has ever
been forthcoming to support such claims and the contract for services was
terminated on the 17'" May 2004 under section 1 paragraphs 5 and 10 and
section 12 paragraph 12.
1.Brief Case History
The Subpostmaster Mr Lee Castleton first reported that a large cash shortage
of approximately £1100.00 had occurred in week 39, although this loss was
made good prior to the cash account being produced. The next large shortage
of £4230.97 was reported in cash account week 43 and this was reported to
the Retail Line Manager.
Subsequently on each of the next three weeks the shortages in the account
are rolled over with each increasing loss being added to the rolling total. At of
cash account week 46 there was a total of £8243.10 in counter losses at the
branch.
This figure was then transferred to the suspense account for cash account
week 47. There were further losses in cash account week 48 of £3509.18 ,
this figure was added to the suspense account to give a total held in table 2a
of £11752.78.
The counter loss of £3512.26 in cash account week 49 was rolled over into
cash account week 50.
The final result in cash account week 50 produced another counter loss
£7140.85, which when added to the loss rolled over from week 49 gave a total
of £10,656.11.
The final rolling loss figure at the audit of the 23" March 2003 found there to
be £11,210.56 short in the accounts with £11,752.78 being held in the
suspense account. The final figure posted to the late account duty totalled
£25,758.75.
Despite receiving advice from the Retail Line Manager and from the National
Business Support Centre Mr Castleton did not implement the advice on
introducing tighter managerial controls to identify the source of the ongoing
POL00083351
POL00083351
problems, he repeated states that the problems all the fault of the Horizon
computer system.
The balance results that have been recorded by the interim Subpostmasters
since the date of suspension on the 23 March 2004 have in every week
replicated the results that would be expected at a branch that transacted the
level of business of Marine Drive. There have been no issues identified by the
Horizon System Helpdesk, Fujitsu nor have there been any corresponding
transactional error notices that could explain the losses that were reported
over the period in question.
2. Enquiries Pre Appeal
a) Enquires were made to Cheryl Woodward at Transaction Processing to
b
Cc.
)
q)
e
f)
check on the volume of error notices recorded prior to the loss period
between weeks 42 and 51 as well as checking as the level of error
notices that had been received since the suspension on the 23
March. Only one error notice of note had been received and this was
for the sum of £1256.88 to be charged to the late account. Two smaller
error notices totally £292.00 were also to be charged to the late
account.
An analysis of seventeen weeks cash accounts were undertaken to
establish the following: The arithmetical accuracy of those accounts,
the average volume and value of the transactions at the branch over
this period, the average cash usage, the cash ordering cycle as well as
identifying any transactional areas that were outside the mean average
value for the branch.
A visit to the Marine Drive branch on the 28" June 2004 to investigate
all those transactions that had been identified as being outside the
mean average value. The transactions were proved against the
Horizon receipts on hand in the branch. A number of further checks
were conducted across the receipts on hand to prove the final totals
that appear in the end of week accounts. Again these were proved to
be correct.
Enquires were conducted with the Retail Line Manager as to why the
advice she had imparted had not been followed by the Subpostmaster
and any reason as to why such losses were consistently dismissed by
the Subpostmaster as being proper to the Horizon System.
A daily transactional analysis could be conducted from balance
snapshots in the cash accounts of weeks 46, 47 and 50. The
transactional analysis and cash usage that was conducted indicated
that there were anomalies between the cash declared on each
Tuesday and the final cash declaration on the Wednesday at the final
balance.
A further visit to the branch was made on the 30" June 2004 to track
the Girobank business deposits that the branch received to establish
the flow of cash into the office. The branch holds the account book for
a customer account 685 9461 and this customer regularly deposits
significant volumes of cash every Wednesday. Analysis of all the
customers’ deposits that had been made since November 2003 was
conducted to confirm the deposits had been brought to account. The
POL00083351
POL00083351
cash account weeks of 46, 47 and 50 where daily transactional
analysis was being conducted were doubled checked to establish the
levels of cash that had been stated as being received from this
customer.
g) The analysis from the additional cash deposits confirmed as being paid
in by the customer 685 9461 demonstrated that false cash declarations
were being made as the cash usage that occurred in each week
examined (46, 47 and 50) was not reflected in final cash declared upon
the completion of the balance. The cash that was received from this
customer was not reflected in the cash that was finally declared in each
of the weeks examined.
h) Enquires were made to NBSC and HSH to ascertain and verify checks
that had previously been requested and conducted on the Horizon
system to confirm the systems integrity.
i) Analysis of all the telephone records held by NBSC and the HSH to
ascertain the detail of the calls, check the instructions issued to Mr
Castleton as well as check that the branch did not close due to running
out of cash.
3. Appeal Hearing
Notes of Appeal
Mr Lee Castleton
Thursday 1° July 2004 — Darlington Area Office
Present: Mr Lee Castleton (LC)
Mrs Julie Langham, Representative (JL)
Mr John Jones, Appeals Manager (JJ)
Miss Paula Carmichael (note-taker)
JJ made the necessary introductions and outlined the appeals process. He
explained that a decision would usually be made within seven days.
JJ began the interview by stating that LC’s contract had been terminated and
went on to ask him why he was appealing against this decision. LC replied
that he felt there had been computer errors at the branch and he wanted more
information.
JJ asked LC what cash declaration process he used. LC replied that he used
the cash declaration sheet and counted cash from the safe and drawers. JJ
asked if his cash declarations were accurate and LC replied that they were,
nine times out of ten. JJ asked about his process for ordering cash. LC said
that the car auction supplemented their cash requirement (garage which
makes a large daily deposit of cash) and he made sure they had enough cash
by placing an order before 2pm on a Tuesday. JJ asked LC how he knew
how much cash to order and LC replied that he based it on amounts
POL00083351
POL00083351
previously used and Chrissie’s experience (assistant). JJ asked what he
would do if there was a discrepancy. LC said he would go through the usual
places to look such as Girobank cheques, re-check the cash and go through
all columns on the final balance.
JJ asked LC what his process was for dealing with error notices. LC replied
that he would work back through the paperwork and make it good before the
next balance.
JJ asked what action he took following the first discrepancy in Week 39. LC
said he made a call to the helpline to say he was short and began to work
through all the figures. LC stated he kept asking for help following
subsequent shortages, but his Retail Line Manager said it could be in the
system and would probably come back.
JJ asked if LC had taken any other action. LC said they had discussed
splitting the stock unit or running a manual week. LC said he had been in
favour of running a manual week to prove the system was wrong, but this had
not actually been done and he was then suspended.
JJ asked LC what system problems he thought were happening. LC said that
they constantly had to re-boot the system, the screen was freezing, ONCH
was quadrupling and there were so many other things. LC said he thought it
might be a software problem and at this point JL asked if it was not possible
for the hard disk from the computer to be taken away to be checked. JL went
on to say that she thought it appeared that there was no actual cash missing,
more that the figures had been misinterpreted on the lines.
JJ explained that the actual cash account adds up and that there was only
three things the computer could do:-
e Change balance forward figure
e Increase payments
e Increase receipts
JJ produced a report showing a 17-week cash analysis. He showed this to
LC and asked him if it surprised him. LC asked how the report was
generated, to which JJ replied that it was taken from the cash accounts. LC
then responded ‘no then’, indicating that the report didn’t surprise him.
JJ then produced a report showing a cash analysis for cash ordering which
showed rems inbound, average cash in hand, as well as tracking cash in and
cash ordered. JJ asked why extra cash had been ordered to which LC replied
‘I haven’t got a clue’. JJ went on to talk about a figure from the report, which
showed that the branch already had £60K, but another £40K had been
ordered. JJ said there was a higher trend between weeks 42 and 49 of how
much cash had been ordered. The difference between payments and
receipts is around £25K-£35K, but the trend in weeks 42 to 49 still was that
significantly higher amounts had been ordered. LC said he only ordered what
he felt was required. JJ said that for the entire period they actually needed
POL00083351
POL00083351
between £200K-£265K, but had ordered £305K, of which £20K had gone
back.
JL said at this point that she felt her branch would be similar and went on to
explain that because of pre-planning, she had had to ring up for extra cash in
fear of running out, which had happened a couple of times. JL said it was
difficult to gauge how much cash you would need.
JJ went on to ask LC what had happened to all the extra cash. LC replied
that he didn’t know.
John then went on to talk about two snapshots from 10/2/04 and 11/2/04. On
11/2/04 there was £39K in receipts and £23K had been paid out. The cash
declaration from 11/2/04 stated £33K, when it should have stated £41K. On
that particular day, the auction had paid in £16.5K in cash. JJ asked LC to
explain these figures. LC said that it was a problem with Horizon not adding
up.
Looking at the cash declaration, JJ asked why this was not declared on
Wednesday 11/2/04. LC said that it must be within the paperwork. Declare
£68,163 on Tuesday, differential £16K receipts and pay out £12K. Should lock
up £72K — declare £81K in office. Declared false figure.
JJ asked why in Week 50 did he declare exactly the same figure of £3,500
each night on the snapshot. LC said it was all generated within the office.
JJ said that LC had told him he had declared accurate cash figures. LC said it
was generated from the system.
JJ said that £16.5K had physically come into the office in cash, but that the
cash declarations did not physically reflect this. LC responded that all figures
are generated from the machine that, in his view, is not working. JJ asked LC
what evidence he had of this and explained that the same Horizon kit was still
in the office. LC asked JJ what happened as part of the audit upon
changeover. JJ explained that they would transfer the difference out and that
the incoming subpostmaster does not carry any loss. A figure of £25K would
be transferred to Chesterfield. JJ stated that since LC had been suspended,
there had been no discrepancies over £22.00 at Marine Drive.
JJ said that Fujitsu had looked at the system on two occasions remotely and
have constantly said that the cash declared does not match. LC said that
checks had only been done going back to 1** March 2004, whilst the problems
had started on 13" January 2004. LC asked why had they not checked back
to when the errors had first started. JJ said that Fujitsu cannot find any
problem with the system.
JJ went on to ask LC about his aversion to the possibility of theft when
mentioned by Cath Oglesby on a visit to his branch. LC said that he was
there most of the time and Chrissie was there all of the time. LC went on to
say that Chrissie had worked there for 17 years and there was no chance that
anyone was left unsupervised. JJ asked LC why he was averse to advice
from Cath. LC said that in his opinion it was impossible for someone to steal
through that period of time. LC went on to say that he was averse to the
suggestion of theft after 8 weeks of reporting misbalances. LC said that all
figures are generated within the office and that they had been through all the
figures. He said he had tried to find the problem all along, but didn’t believe it
was due to theft as no one was left unsupervised. He said he had received
no support from Cath Oglesby from the start.
JJ said that checks had been done to test the integrity of the system. JJ
explained that Clear Desktop is an integrity system function that checks data.
LC confirmed he understood this.
LC said he could not understand why after week 1 or 2 someone couldn't
have come to support him. JJ explained that the Horizon system has to have
a high resolution of integrity.
JJ moved on to talk about snapshots taken on 9/3/04 (week 50) and asked
why the net discrepancy is the same throughout the week and different on the
final one. LC said it was because the machine is not working and that the
discrepancy should have showed on the top of the snapshot. At this point LC
handed JC the instructions manual.
Whilst JJ read this, LC said ‘John, you are a specialist aren't you?’. ‘Are you
not paid separately for Horizon?’ LC specifically asked for his two comments
to be included within these interview notes.
JJ said he would have to take all the information away and look at it
thoroughly, as well as taking advice from the Horizon team. JJ said suspense
account checks had been done and this was just one issue in a whole set of
issues.
JJ asked LC to show him cash declarations for weeks 45 and 46 and asked
him why he was doing a cashflow before his cash declaration. LC said he
was able to have a look at how it was showing up cash. Again, JJ asked LC
why he was doing his cash declaration after producing a cashflow. LC replied
‘I haven't got a clue. NBSC said the facility was there’. LC said he didn’t
know what it was for.
JJ then referred back to why larger amounts of cash had been ordered. LC
replied that he must have needed it. JJ asked LC if he had taken the money.
LC replied ‘no, absolutely not, 100%’. LC said that two tests had been done
throughout this period and found nothing wrong, but obviously there was.
JJ asked LC if he wanted to add anything further. At this point LC handed JJ
a log of phone calls to the helpline etc. JL said she thought it had took a long
time for Cath Oglesby to get involved, especially as they were new to the
office. JJ explained that the role of a Retail Line Manager has changed and
they are now not the first point of contact for subpostmasters, the helpline is.
JL asked JJ if he personally felt that LC had had enough support and JJ
POL00083351
POL00083351
confirmed he felt the support he had been given mirrored the support given to
every subpostmaster in Post Office Ltd.
JJ closed the interview.
4. Post Appeal Enquiries
a)
b)
A further check was made to Transaction Processing late account duty
to confirm that there were no other outstanding errors notices in the
system.
The Horizon final account declarations were handed to Network
Development Manager, Anita Turner who has no knowledge of the
case to conduct an analysis of the losses and the movements into the
suspense account between cash accounts weeks 45 and 50. The
results of this analysis were communicated in a letter to Mr Castleton
on the 8" July 2004.
5. Factors affecting the decision
a)
b)
c)
qd)
e)
f)
The branch incurred unprecedented declared losses over a twelve
week period , for which Mr Castleton could only offer the explanation
that it was the Horizon System that was causing the errors.
The Subpostmaster has not during any period both prior to his
suspension on the 23" March 2004 and the appeal hearing on the 1°
July 2004 provided evidence that could be used to further investigate
or corroborate the allegations that he continually makes.
The checks that have been conducted by Fujitsu indicate that the
branch makes false cash declarations, this analysis was further
corroborated with the daily account analysis that was conducted as
part of the pre appeal enquiries. Mr Castleton was unable to offer
explanations for this, other than it was a fault on the system.
The weekly analysis that was conducted identified that the branch
required approximately £265k to meet its transactional requirements
between weeks 42 and 49, however the cash remittances were
increased outside the normal previously ordered remittances. This
resulted £305k being ordered over the same period, with only £20k
being returned. In each case the additional cash is ordered prior to a
subsequent cash discrepancy being declared. Mr Castleton could offer
no explanations as to why such sums of cash had been ordered that
were in excess of what was actually required.
That no error notices are evident through Transaction Processing to
provide an explanation to the counter losses that have been declared.
The daily cash transactional analysis that was conducted identified in
cash accounts week 46,47 and 50 that there was clear evidence of
false cash declarations being made as the cash received from a giro
customer was not reflected in the final cash declaration at the branch.
Mr Castleton was unable to offer any explanation for such
discrepancies, other than it ‘was the system’.
POL00083351
POL00083351
g) That the branch has never incurred such large losses since the
suspension of Mr Castleton, despite a number of interim
Subpostmaster operating the branch. Mr Castleton could offer no
explanation as to why accurate balances are being recorded on the
system that he repeatedly alleges is corrupt.
h) That Mr Castleton when questioned denied ever taking the cash
himself.
i) The account declarations and movements into the suspense account
have been extensively examined by both the Retail Line Manager and
colleagues as well as an experienced manager in London to confirm
that the accounts declared by the Horizon system and the suspense
account are functioning correctly.
j) That the branch never ran out of cash and subsequently closed, if the
system was declaring spurious entries in the account there would
always be sufficient cash in the branch to meet its requirements. The
excess ordering of cash ensured that the branch always remained
trading, however Mr Castleton was unable to explain as to why the
additional cash was required in the branch if it was a system error as
any such system error would not affect the cash on hand as this was a
physical entity.
k) The accounting practices of Mr Castleton indicates that he chooses to
declare losses, make good error notices and declare the true position
of his accounts as he pleases. The evidence suggests that the
continuing practice of rolling losses together without seeking authority
to carry them even after the first amalgamated losses are introduced
into the suspense account in week 47, this practice continues from
week 49 until 51.
6. Conclusion
The case has a number of facets interrelated to the branches accounts apart
from the immediate headline issue of the large and unprecedented counter
losses declared at the branch.
The extensive analysis that has been conducted through the accounting
documentation made available for the appeal case as well as the cross
examination of transactional records at the branch indicate that the
transactions performed on the whole are done so accurately and in
accordance with operational guidelines.
This fact is corroborated by Transaction Processing who do not have
outstanding or waiting system adjustment error notices that could other wise
explain such discrepancies. There are only three error notices, and all of
these are to charge that have been added to the late account of the branch
and in each case they relate to a period immediately prior to the suspension
of Mr Lee Castleton.
The cash usage analysis and tracking of transactions that fall outside the
mean average value for the branch however indicate another factor to the
case. The cash that is ordered for the branch requirements is systematically
POL00083351
POL00083351
increased on four occasions, following the increases in the branch remittance,
their occurs a large cash discrepancy. Such trends are not in keeping with a
computer system error as Mr Castleton maintains, although he is unable to
provide any form of satisfactory answer as to why there is a need to keep
ordering extra cash for the branch.
The normal process for ordering cash at the Marine Drive branch is that the
branch contacts the Cash Centre prior to 14.00pm on a Wednesday to place
an order that will be delivered a day later on a Thursday. At this point of the
week the branch should be able to accurately estimate the actual cash the
branch requires. However in the weeks 42 through to 50 this appears not to
be the case.
The daily cash usage from cash accounts weeks 46, 47 and 50 present
another anomaly when the actual cash usage is compared with the actual
cash received from a Giro business customer, then the cash declarations
made on the Tuesday and Wednesday of each of these weeks has been
demonstrated to be false. Mr Castleton was asked on several occasions to
explain why such entries have been made and he was unable to offer any
reason other the same ‘it’s the system’ fault.
The printouts from the snapshots and final balances have been examined by
numerous managers all who have extensive experience in the use of the
Horizon accounting system as well as the functionality of the suspense
account, all have arrived at the same conclusion independently that the
system is functioning and not creating spurious entries.
Mr Castleton was given advice as to effective management of his accounts as
well as applying a proven methodology to identify either the losses or in the
event of misappropriation the person perpetrating such activity, it is
concerning that he chose to ignore such advice and blindly blame everything
on the computer system. Such an approach by Mr Castleton gives me cause
for concern as he is a relatively new Subpostmaster and is making definitive
statements about a computer system with out even considering any other
case for the account discrepancies.
To summarise, when Mr Castleton was presented with the factual
occurrences from the accounts he has produced that indicate that false
declarations and practices that do not equate to the normal running of his
branch he is unable to offer any explanation other than blaming the Horizon
system.
Mr Castleton has however failed to provide any evidence nor show any from
of trend within the branches accounts that would indicate that there was a
problem with the computer system.
He has spent much time and effort in asking irrelevant and unrelated
questions to the case and these I can only conclude are borne out of a wish to
distract away from the actual facts of the case and the unexplained counter
losses.
POL00083351
POL00083351
It is my opinion that the losses incurred at the branch are genuine and that the
decision to initially suspend Mr Castleton as a precautionary measure and
ultimately terminate his contract for services were soundly based and
warranted in the circumstances.
7. Decision
Appeal Dismissed.
8. Recommendation
The case in respect of the losses was not investigated by Security and
Investigation, however I have considerable concerns over the in payment
practice operated by the Girobank customer (account 685 9461).
The customer leaves the in payment book in the branch at all times and
apparently entrusts the Subpostmaster to complete the deposit entry and
process the transaction following their cash deposit.
No customer receipts are ever handed back to the customer as these are left
with the in payment book.
I was able to establish that all the deposits entered into the customers in
payment book from November 2003 until June 2004 were processed through
the Horizon system.
What I was unable to establish was whether the amounts the customer
deposited at the branch were the same amounts that were entered into the
customers deposit and processed in the same time window.
I would request Security and Investigation to check this customers actual
deposits for the period 42 to 51 as I have already established that the cash
declarations made where the daily analysis in week 46, 47 and 50 does not
match the cash that should have been declared.
I believe that there may be a case to answer in respect of Giro account
suppression.
John Jones
Appeals Manager
Post Office Ltd
Calthorpe House
15-20 Phoenix Place
London
WC1X ODG
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 3
Stephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 17:30
To: ‘Denise Gammack'’
Subject: RE: The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton
Hi Denise,
Thanks for your email.
Just to refresh your memory this is the case where Mr Castleton was a subpostmaster who was
dismissed for failing to acccount for a shortfall of over £27,000. The Post Office instructed
Laura in CMS to issue a claim. After issuing, Laura passed the file to you and Mr Castleton filed
a defence and Counterclaim for £250,000 claiming his contract had been wrongfully terminated.
Mr Castleton's solicitors how now expanded further about their telephone conversation with
you. They state that they received a voice mail from you on 15 September asking them to
discuss the matter and that their Mr Turner then called you. They said that during the course of
the conversation you said that there was an oversight in relation to the Reply and Defence, that
you had not been in the office at the time when the Allocation Questionnaire was despatched
for filing and that you assumed that whoever had dealt with it in your absence had forgotten to
enclose the Reply and Defence.
They say you then asked whether Mr Castleton would be prepared to grant a retrospective
extension of time for service of the Reply and Defence and they said they would seek
instructions but that they did not envisage Mr Castleton would be prepared to do so, given the
dilatory way (in his view) that the Post Office had treated his requests for information and
documentation. They then told you they had filed a Request for Judgment. (Apparently it was
filed on 7 September).
They say the clear impression they got from you was that you suddenly realised on receipt of
their letter of 14 September that no Reply and Defence had been filed.
I believe that Mr Castleton may now have obtained judgment in default on the counterclaim
against the Post Office. I am therefore applying to set it aside. However, it would help the
application if you could recall as best as possible what you and Mr Turner said in your
conversation. Do you think Mr Turner's recollection of the conversation he had with you was
accurate?
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
From: Denise Gammacki
Sent: 17 November 2005
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton
17/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 3
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your email. I hope all is going well in Plymouth for you, other than the fact that this CMS file is still
going on..........
I'm sorry but I can't currently remember very much about this one. I'll carry on racking my brains and let you
know if anything comes to back to me.
Regards otherwise
Denise
Denise Gammack
Stones Solicitors
Linacre House
Southernhay Gardens
Exeter EX1 1UG
From: Stephen Dilley...
Sent: 16 November 2005 17:31
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton
Dear Denise,
I hope you are well and enjoying life at Stones.
The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton claim continues. Mr Castleton's solicitors have made a
comment about a telecon with you on 15 September and I'd appreciate your feedback before I
go back to them on this point. Please see attached.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
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.
17/11/2005
17/11 '05 15:38 FAX! GRO I ROWECOHEN .
POL00083351
POL00083351
@oo1
17-NOV-2005 15:39
QUAY HOUSE, QUAY STREET, MANCHESTER. M3 SJE (DX 14352 MCR-1)
Direct dial telephone: pa)
Direct dialfax:: GRO I
email:
Fax
ROWE COHEN :
SQUIEITORS :
To: Stephen Dilley - Bond Pearce From: = Mark Tumer
Faun Pages: 4
Phone: Date: 17/1108
Ret _ The Post Otfice/.ee Castleton cc:
C Urgent OForReview [Please Comment 1 Please Reply
0 Please Recycle
i
i
I
P.001
POL00083351
POL00083351
ROWECOHEN @oo02
17/11 ‘05 15:38
Date: 17 November 2005 se
Your ref: SID3/FAC1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark T
Direct dial: r
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
I
Post Office Limited ~v- Castleton
‘We refer to your letter of yesterday and your fax received earlier today.
Disclosure
Prior ta the issue of proceedings, we pressed your client to provide by way of vohmtary pre-action disclosure
various! documents that, in our view, would assist iri resolving this matter.
You ab make available to us certain documentation under cover of your letter of 16 February. These
documents consisted of a proportion of the papers removed by Cath Oglesby of your client from Marine Drive
Post Office ‘on the suspension of our client. Crucially, however, you did not return all of the documents that
had been removed.
Most notably, you failed to retum the complete set of daily snapshots. We have explained to you previously
the pivotal importance of those documents and have repeatedly invited you to disclose to us the remainder
which were not returned under cover of your letter of 16 February. We have also made available to you the
preliminary report of Bentley Jennison, which confirms the importance of these documents and the need for
their disclosure so as to be able to properly address the reason for the apparent shortfalls which form the basis
of your client's claim.
To date, however, you have failed to address the reason for your client’s inability or unwillingness to provide
these documents, or af the very least the daily snapshots, in advance of formal standard disclosure, despite the
fact that they could very well be determinative of the claim. Your responses have been bald assertions that
your client is aware of its disclosure obligations, that it will abide by them in due course and that you awaited
further substantive instructions in relation to our (repeated) requests.
‘We accept that the problems experienced by the sub-postmaster in Chelmsford who was referred to in the
extract which we forwarded to you recently may not be related to our client’s own problems. It does tend to
support our client's assertion, however, that the Horizon system is not without its problems. This flics in the
face of the blanket denial of any known problem with the Horizon system that your client has adopted to date,
as well as its refusal to even countenance the possibility of such a fault.
: I
Our purpose was merely to illustrate that our client’s case is not an isolated one. Indeed, as we have
previously explained, jit is apparent from our client’s own research and contact with other sub-postmasters that
shortfalls of this kind and apparent problems with the Horizon system are not uncommon. Accordingly, we
sought to put you on notice that we would require disclosure of documents in your client’s possession that are
relevant to these problems and to similar disputes with other sub-postmasters.
E ‘Webi win rowecohen com
PCE CHHEN TT Ram © Dy Horwich « UN. Lame » MLV Hymancon » GP Small » A Dennison + BT; oghinn + JM Dwck + A. Farley © A Sacks» ATylor
MC Woodall { Rj Sproston « §.Raom « AiCurwen + Rj.Myer © H Bure * SBSuton Aieoeacon LE Swasings A.D.Ovens » M. Molloy» FSemgson ‘Caneuftanc: MT. Horwich
1 fr res ye Low Scr
Also at London
GMARKTBBEVICASTLETONUTI10$ LETTERTO GOND PEARCE,
i {ANVESTOR IN PEOPLE
17-NOV-2006 16:39
94% P.002
POL00083351
POL00083351
17/11 ‘05 18:39 FAX! GRO} ROWECOBEN aoos
Reply and Defence to-Counterclaim
The extension of time that your client afforded to our client for filing his Defence and Counterclaim followed
an exchange of correspondence connected with the disclosure issues referred to above. As we made clear at 1
the titne, it was our view that proceedings had been issued prematurely without dealing fully with the request
for pre-action disclosure. You agreed to the extension pending your taking further instructions in relation to
our request for disclosbre.
Your client’s Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim was due for service by5S September, the last date
for filing Allocation Questionnaires with the court. You provided us with a copy of your client's Allocation ;
Questionnaire (dated 7 September) under cover of your letter dated 7 September. No statement of case was :
served under cover of that letter nor was any request received for any extension of time for service of a Reply
and Defence, Had such an extension been sought, it would have been granted.
On 7 September, we spoke with a clerk at Scarborough County Court to enquire whether a Reply and Defence
had been served. We were told that none had been received. Accordingly, we despatched Request for
Judgment by Default later that day. We enclose a copy of the Request.
We then wrote to you;on 14 September querying whether a Reply and Defence had been filed, given that the
court had informed usithat none had been received. The writer then received a voicemail message from Denise
Gammack of your firth on 15 September asking him to telephone to discuss this matter.
He duly retumed the ‘call and, during the course of that conversation, Ms Gammack commented that there
appeared to have been an oversight in relation to the Reply and Defence, that she had not been in the office at
the time when the Allocation Questionnaire was despatched for filing and that she assumed that whoever had
dealt with it in her absence had forgotten to enclose the Reply and Defence.
Ms Gammack asked Iwhether our client would be prepared to grant a retrospective extension of time for
service of the Reply and Defence. We said that we would need to seek instructions but that but that we did not
envisage that our client would be prepared to do so, not least given the dilatory way in which (at least in his
view) your client had dealt with our own requests for information and documentation. We indicated that we
had, in any event, already filed a Request for Judgment.
'
The clear impression! that the writer received from the conversation with Ms Gammack was that she had
suddenly realised on neccipt of our letter of 14 September that no Reply and Defence had been filed.
Rather tellingly in our view, there was then no attempt by your firm to serve a Reply and Defence
immediately following that conversation. If it had been drafted and ready to serve, but had not been
despatched to the court by oversight, it would be reasonable to assume that you would have addressed this
immediately on becoming aware of the oversight. You did not. Nor did you make an application for a
retrospective extension of time for service.
Indeéd, no further corespondence was received from you until your letter of 7 November. Granted, the court
did order a stay of proceedings for one month by its Order of 4 October. Nevertheless, there was a gap of
some 3 weeks between your becoming aware that no Reply and Defence had been filed and the stay being
imposed. That was, ini our respectful view, ample time for you to make the appropriate application to the court
for relief from sanction. Even once the stay was in place, you could have sought to serve a statement of case
out of time and appliéd immediately upon its expiry for relief from sanction. You did not do so.
It appears that it was not until you received our letter of 14 November (enclosing a copy of a letter that we had
sent to the court querying the form of the Judgment in Default Order dated 9 November) that you were stirred
into action. Your client's Reply and Defence to Counterclaim (which we note is undated) was then received
by us by fax under cover of your letter of 15 November. Please confirm when this document was actually
drafted (as opposed td when it was signed),
i
GAMARKTUBBEYICASTLETONITI 105 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
17-NOV-2005 16:39 94% P.003
POL00083351
POL00083351
ROWECOHEN @oo4
17/11 ‘05 18:39 FAX! GRO.
Judgment in default
Our request for judgment was lodged with Scarborough County Court on 7 September. For some reason, it
was not processed prior to the transfer of proceedings to the Central Office. :
i
On reteipt of notice of transfer, we wrote to the court on 10 October to enquire whether it had been actioned
following receipt at Central Office. We received a reply dated 12 October indicating that the Request had not
been processed either before transfer or on receipt, and that as the claim had been stayed immediately on
receipt it could not now be processed without an application being made to lift the stay.
We wrote to the court again on 3 November, following the expiry of the stay, asking for our client’s Request
for Judgment to now be processed. We assume that this prompted the (rather oddly worded) “Judgment for the
Claimant” dated 9 November, listing this matter for a CMC on 6 December.
1
We wrote to the court'on 14 November querying the wording of the Judgment, copying the letter to you for
reference. :
Your assertion that no judgment against your client has yet been processed is, with respect, somewhat
disingenuous, What else could the Judgment dated 9 November be intended to mean? Our client filed his
Defence and Counterclaim in time so quite obviously it could not be intended to actually mean that judgment
had been taken against the Defendant, as indicated on the face of the order. The only reasonable interpretation
of the Order of 9 November is that it is a typographical error on the part of the clerk who drew up the Order.
i
This is confirmed by a message left for the writer earlier today by Sahin, one of the clerks in the Judgments
Section at the Central Office, presumably prompted by our letter of 14 November. He indicated that there had
been an error on the face of the order of 9 Novernber and that a revised Order would be despatched to the
parties in tonight’s post. Having now spoken with the court, it has confirmed that the revision is to make it
clear'that the judgment is in favour of the Defendant, in default of a Defence having been served to the
Counterclaim,
n all the circumstancés, our client is not prepared to consent to the judgment being set aside. Irrespective of
whether your client has a reasonable prospect of succeeding in defending the counterclaim, it is clear that
there, has been considerable delay in applying for relief from sanction. That delay is, in our view, sufficient
reason for the court to:decline to exercise its discretion to set judgment aside.
Thank you for the reference to Call -v- Tatum. That case differs to these proceedings in that our client’s
Request for Judgment was processed (and without a hearing being required) before the purported service of
your \client’s Reply and Defence. We shall leave the Master to determine any application your client might
choose to make and to assess whether your client can bring itself within the ambit of the court’s decision in
Coll—v- Tatum,
Finally, you refer in paragraph 2 to our client’s position viz a viz mediation being at odds with having already
applied for judgment! in default, We cannot agree. Even if the counterclaim was to proceed straight to a
hearing to deal with quantum, it would still require further time and cost to resolve it, which mediation may
assist in avoiding. In any event, your client's own claim would still need to proceed. We see nothing
misleading in our correspondence relating to mediation nor inconsistent with our client having previously
sought (and obtained) judgment in default.
I GRO
1
I GAMARKTABBENCASTLETON7: 105 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE.
17-NOV-2008 16:40 94% P.004
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bend harce
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Fax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
To: The Court Manager Royal Courts of Justice
ce:
From: Stephen Dilley Our ref: SJD3/ABG1/348035.134
Direct: Date: 17 November 2005
Number of pages: 6
Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
Claim No: HQ05X02706
BY FAX AND DX a
Confidentiality notice
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents. Instead, please notify the sender 9s soon
as possible and destroy the fax. yt o
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered n England and Wales number 0C311430,
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-1 jiff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0262 07.
Aidt of members of Bond Pearce 1s open for inspection atthe registered office. Regulated By the Law Soces). _ www.bondpearce.com
1A_1090685_t val!
POL00083351
POL00083351
F
17 November 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
i Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
The Court Manager
Masters Support Unit
Queens Bench Division
Reval Courts. of Justice
GRO Our ref:
S3D3/ABG1/348035.134
Your ref:
Dear Sirs
Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
Claim No: HQ05X02706
We act on behalf of the Claimant/Part 20 Defendant in relation to the above matter.
We enclose three copies of an Application Notice and draft Order for your attention. The Application Notice
is for an Order that the Claimant be at liberty to file its reply to the Defence and Defence to Counterclaim
out of time and that if a Judgment in Default has been entered against the Claimant, that it be set aside.
We also enclose a cheque for £100 with the hard copy of this letter being the Court Fee.
The Witness Statement in support of our Application will follow shortly. We understand that a Hearing has
been listed for 30 minutes to take place on 6 December 2005 to decide the amount which the Defendant
must pay the Claimant. In the light of our Application to set aside any Default Judgment that may have
been entered against the Claimant, we would ask that the Hearing on 6 December be vacated and listed
for the first available date thereafter with a time estimate of two hours.
We thank the Court in anticipation of its assistance and look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redciiff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1090670_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
Stephen Dilley
17 November 2005 16:57,
cath.oglesbyt....
FW: Urgent The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington)
Importance: High
Attachments: Ecopy Scan.pdf
Ecopy Scan.pdf
(566 KB)
Dear Ms Oglesby,
I refer to my earlier email and to our telephone conversation today.
l attach to this email your letter to Mr Castleton dated 26 April 2004, the interview minutes of 10 May 2004 and
your subsequent notes.
In addition to the queries raised below, it would be helpful if you could please explain in detail precisely what
happens when a person goes into a post office to buy something. Precisely how is it recorded? Is it manually
inputted into Horizon at the same time or later in the day? Is the cash register linked to Horizon? How does the
Horizon system work? Could Mr Castleton be correct that the daily snapshots will not match the I will need to
explain this to the judge who will know nothing at all about Horizon, so it would be helpful if you could be as
thorough as possible.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and.on_behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
DDI: }
Main office phon
coonn Original Message-----
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 11:50
To: cath.oglesk, .
Cc: ‘cheryl. woodwar mandy.talbot_.,,
Subject: Urgent The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington)
Dear Ms Oglesby,
I have tried unsuccessfully to speak to you today.
Mr Castleton's solicitors are seeking the return of documents that they say you removed from the Marine Drive
Post Office when you did an audit. I understand that not all those can be found.
I attach copies of the following:-
(a) A without prejudice letter dated 30 September from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond Pearce;
(b) Bentley Jennison's Report dated 23 September and attachments; and
(c) White & Hoggard’s report dated 18 August.
Bentley Jennison state that the deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the fact that they have
been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system, despite the
1
POL00083351
POL00083351
‘spense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily snapshot. They have drawn this conclusion
through looking at the discrepancy of £3,509.18 on Thursday 26 February 2004. They then suggest that this
double accounting could have continued over a number of weeks and that as such, Mr Castleton's Defence,
“appears to hold potential merit based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed. White & Hoggard
reach a similar conclusion in their report.
Bentley Jennison seek:
(i) A full list of all the transactions carried out within the Post Office (he says that it is not good enough that
management information is not available simply because the "month end has been closed down".
(ii) The actual audit report you prepared. He says that the actual report would have been a manuscript writing
document rather than a typed document.
(iii) P and A Reports for weeks 39-52.
(iv) Cash and stock counts for when Mr Castleton began trading and when he stopped being a Post Office Sub-
Postmaster.
(vi) The events log for weeks 39 to 52.
(vii) Transaction log.
(viii) The daily snapshots.
Mr Castleton believes that if he can get these documents, he will be able to undertake a manual reconciliation of
the cash account in order to substantiate his belief that the losses are not real but attributable to computer error.
1. Do you believe the suggestion put forward by the experts could (at least in theory) be correct? If not, why
not?
2. Do you have a list of what documents you removed to do the audit? Is it normal for sub post office masters to
do daily snapshots?
3. Would it be possible to regenerate the above missing records from computer records at the Post Office? If
computer records are not kept centrally, would they be stored on the hard drives of the computers at the Marine
Post Office? If so, could you obtain them?
4. In an email from Fujitsu to Richard Benton dated 5 May 2004, Fujitsu stated "It is possible that they are not
accurately recording all transactions on the system. " If there have been human errors in recording the
transactions, could an explanation be that:
(a) there was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the information entered on to it; but
(b) if staff punched in the wrong numbers into Horizon, there may have been no real loss (even though Horizon
would show a loss) - it is simply an error in accurately recording transactions.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP.
DDI: } i
Main office pron
Fax: £
Www. bOrapearce:cony
-Original Message-n---
From: cheryl.woodwar GRO
Sent: 17 November 20US"08:49~
To: cath.ogles! sR
Cc: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Urgent Re: FW: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Hi Cath
POL00083351
POL00083351
Could you please contact Stephen Dilley at Bond Pearce Solicitors in relation to Lee Castleton formally of Marine
Drive Po. They need to know what documentation was removed from the office.
Hi Stephen
As you can see I have asked Cath to contact you but here is her number anyway {
Thanks Cheryl.
JES OSI CSI SISSIES IESE IOS SASSI IORI IDIOKISRA IOIIOEA AEA KAGE
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.
JESSIE SOI II IO IEI SI SOE CORBIS ASE EESTI ARIES IS IORI CIA II AI ACI ACA.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 15:22
To: ‘john.hJ jones
Ce: ‘mandy. talb, a
Subject: FW: Urgent ‘The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington)
Attachments: MULTIMEDIA_1077082.TIF
MULTIMEDIA_1077
082.TIF (678 KB...
Dear Mr Jones,
lam a solicitor at Bond Pearce LLP and have recently taken over conduct of the Post Office's claim against Mr
Castleton. I understand form Ms Oglesby that you presided over his appeal against being dismissed in 2004. Is
this correct?
You will see the gist of Mr Castleton's defence from my email to Ms Oglesby below. In summary, he has obtained
2 expert's reports which state that the deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the fact that they
have been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system, despite the
suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily snapshot.
We need to obtain as much documentation as possible to ascertain whether there may be any truth in this
defence. Ms Oglesby believes that a full set of the documentation which was removed from the post office would
have been sent to you to deal with on appeal. Do you still have these documents? If so, please could you send
them to me?
Please could you also answer the questions that I have directed to Ms Oglesby below?
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and.on.behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 11:50
Subject: Urgent The Post Office -v- Lee ‘castleton (Marine Drive Post Bifice, Bridlington)
Dear Ms Oglesby,
I have tried unsuccessfully to speak to you today.
Mr Castleton's solicitors are seeking the return of documents that they say you removed from the Marine Drive
Post Office when you did an audit. I understand that not all those can be found.
I attach copies of the following:-
(a) A without prejudice letter dated 30 September from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond Pearce;
(b) Bentley Jennison's Report dated 23 September and attachments; and
POL00083351
POL00083351
) White & Hoggard's report dated 18 August.
Bentley Jennison state that the deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the fact that they have
been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system, despite the
suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily snapshot. They have drawn this conclusion
through looking at the discrepancy of £3,509.18 on Thursday 26 February 2004. They then suggest that this
double accounting could have continued over a number of weeks and that as such, Mr Castleton’s Defence,
“appears to hold potential merit based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed. White & Hoggard
reach a similar conclusion in their report.
Bentley Jennison seek:
(i) A full list of all the transactions carried out within the Post Office (he says that it is not good enough that
management information is not available simply because the "month end has been closed down".
(ii) The actual audit report you prepared. He says that the actual report would have been a manuscript writing
document rather than a typed document.
(iii) P and A Reports for weeks 39-52.
(iv) Cash and stock counts for when Mr Castleton began trading and when he stopped being a Post Office Sub-
Postmaster.
(vi) The events log for weeks 39 to 52.
(vii) Transaction log.
(viii) The daily snapshots.
Mr Castleton believes that if he can get these documents, he will be able to undertake a manual reconciliation of
the cash account in order to substantiate his belief that the losses are not real but attributable to computer error.
1. Do you believe the suggestion put forward by the experts could (at least in theory) be correct? If not, why
not?
2. Do you have a list of what documents you removed to do the audit? Is it normal for sub post office masters to
do daily snapshots?
3. Would it be possible to regenerate the above missing records from computer records at the Post Office? If
computer records are not kept centrally, would they be stored on the hard drives of the computers at the Marine
Post Office? If so, could you obtain them?
4, In an email from Fujitsu to Richard Benton dated 5 May 2004, Fujitsu stated "It is possible that they are not
accurately recording all transactions on the system." If there have been human errors in recording the
transactions, could an explanation be that:
(a) there was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the information entered on to it; but
(b) if staff punched in the wrong numbers into Horizon, there may have been no real loss (even though Horizon
would show a loss) - it is simply an error in accurately recording transactions.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
Pearce LLP
POL00083351
POL00083351
: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Urgent Re: FW: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Hi Cath
Could you please contact Stephen Dilley at Bond Pearce Solicitors in relation to Lee Castleton formally of Marine
Drive Po. They need to know what documentation was removed from the office.
Stephert 1
Hi Stephen
Thanks Cheryl.
JOOS IOI IOI OSE SSSI ISS OSS BEI BEI SIEISIOIEIE ESI ISIS IES A IACI OI ASIA AAAI IA
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.
SECO ODOR OOD ORO ARSE OE IGOR IDII ODED IA IAI HADI ACOA ACARI
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Stephen Dilley Location: N/A Date: 17 November 2005
Start time: Units:
SJD3 having a telephone conversation with Sahin Chowdury in the Judgments and Orders
Section of the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division. I explained that I was calling
from Bond Pearce LLP and that we acted for the Claimant.
I asked him whether judgment had been entered for the Claimant or the Defendant. I
explained that I had received a Default Judgment in favour of the Claimant. He confirmed
that the judgment had been entered against the Defendant and in favour of the Claimant.
He said that a request was received on the gt and that the judgment was entered on the
10",
He then said that upon looking at the file there had been a typographical error and that the
judgment should have been entered against the Claimant on the Defendant’s Counterclaim,
rather than against the Defendant on the claim. However, he said that all Default Judgments
were standard and that therefore that there would never be a standard form of Default
Judgment in favour of a Defendant against the Claimant. He said that he would refer the
matter to the Master.
I said that our Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim was filed on 15 November and
asked him to acknowledge receipt of it. He said he would need to get the for this. I said that
on the date that was filed i.e. 15 November, we had not received a Default Judgment against
the Claimant. Accordingly, I sought to persuade him that a Default Judgment against the
Claimant should not now be entered because we had already filed the Defence to the
Counterclaim. He said he would have to refer the matter to the Master. I said that we would
be making an Application today for an extension of time to serve the Reply to Defence and
Defence to Counterclaim and that if a Default Judgment has been entered against the
Claimant, we would apply to set that aside.
Time engaged: 12 minutes.
1A_1091326_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
From: Nicola McSherry
Sent: 17 November 2005 13:18
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Message
Please call John Jones from Post Office re Castleton on ¢
Thanks
Nicola McSherry
Secretary
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com
22/11/2005
Stephen Dilley
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
From: — Avril Grigg
Sent: 17 November 2005 13:08
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Please call Mandy Talbot of Post Office re: Castleton o1
22/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 2
Stephen Dilley
From: Denise Gammack:
Sent: 17 November 2005 13:06
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your email. I hope all is going well in Plymouth for you, other than the fact that this CMS file is still
going on..........
I'm sorry but I can't currently remember very much about this one. I'll carry on racking my brains and let you
know if anything comes to back to me.
Regards otherwise
Denise
Denise Gammack
Stones Solicitors
Linacre House
Southernhay Gardens
Exeter EX1 1UG
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton
Dear Denise,
I hope you are well and enjoying life at Stones.
The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton claim continues. Mr Castleton's solicitors have made a
comment about a telecon with you on 15 September and I'd appreciate your feedback before I
go back to them on this point. Please see attached.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for ani
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged
17/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 2
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: Bristol Bridge House, 138-141 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6BJ.
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.
Stones
‘This e-mail is only for the use of the addressee. It may contain information which is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited.
Ifyou receive this communication in error, please e-mail maf
Service of court proceedings or other notices by e-mail is not accepted.
A list of partners is available for inspection at any Stones’ office.
This firm is not authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 but we are able in certain circumstances to offer a limited range of investment
services to clients because we are members of The Law Society. We can provide these investment services if they are an incidental part of the professional
services we have been engaged to provide.
. OFFICES.AT:....-.-)
Exeter Tel: ; } Torrington. Tel
Tiverton. Tels?
Regulated by The Law Society
17/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 11:50
To: cath.oglesby i
Ce: ‘cheryl.woodWwar ‘mandy. talbot
Subject: Urgent The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (Marine Drivé Post Office, Bridlington)
Attachments: MULTIMEDIA_1077082.TIF
MULTIMEDIA_1077
082.TIF (678 KB...
Dear Ms Oglesby,
I have tried unsuccessfully to speak to you today.
Mr Castleton's solicitors are seeking the return of documents that they say you removed from the Marine Drive
Post Office when you did an audit. I understand that not all those can be found.
I attach copies of the following:-
(a) A without prejudice letter dated 30 September from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond Pearce;
(b) Bentley Jennison's Report dated 23 September and attachments; and
(c) White & Hoggard's report dated 18 August.
Bentley Jennison state that the deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the fact that they have
been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system, despite the
suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily snapshot. They have drawn this conclusion
through looking at the discrepancy of £3,509.18 on Thursday 26 February 2004. They then suggest that this
double accounting could have continued over a number of weeks and that as such, Mr Castleton's Defence,
“appears to hold potential merit based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed. White & Hoggard
reach a similar conclusion in their report.
Bentley Jennison seek:
(i) A full list of all the transactions carried out within the Post Office (he says that it is not good enough that
management information is not available simply because the "month end has been closed down".
(ii) The actual audit report you prepared. He says that the actual report would have been a manuscript writing
document rather than a typed document.
(iii) P and A Reports for weeks 39-52.
(iv) Cash and stock counts for when Mr Castleton began trading and when he stopped being a Post Office Sub-
Postmaster.
(vi) The events log for weeks 39 to 52.
(vii) Transaction log.
(viii) The daily snapshots.
Mr Castleton believes that if he can get these documents, he will be able to undertake a manual reconciliation of
the cash account in order to substantiate his belief that the losses are not real but attributable to computer error.
1. Do you believe the suggestion put forward by the experts could (at least in theory) be correct? If not, why
not?
2. Do you have a list of what documents you removed to do the audit? Is it normal for sub post office masters to
do daily snapshots?
3. Would it be possible to regenerate the above missing records from computer records at the Post Office? If
1
POL00083351
POL00083351
computer records are not kept centrally, would they be stored on the hard drives of the computers at the Marine
Post Office? If so, could you obtain them?
4. In an email from Fujitsu to Richard Benton dated 5 May 2004, Fujitsu stated "It is possible that they are not
accurately recording all transactions on the system." If there have been human errors in recording the
transactions, could an explanation be that:
(a) there was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the information entered on to it; but
(b) if staff punched in the wrong numbers into Horizon, there may have been no real loss (even though Horizon
would show a loss) - it is simply an error in accurately recording transactions.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com
none Original Message:
From: cheryl.woodward¢ __
Sent: 17 November 2005 0;
To: cath.oglesE™
Cc: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Urgent Re: FW: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Hi Cath
Could you please contact Stephen Dilley at Bond Pearce Solicitors in relation to Lee Castleton formally of Marine
Drive Po. They need to know what documentation was removed from the office.
Stephen
Hi Stephen
As you can see I have asked Cath to contact you but here is her number anyway I.
Thanks Cheryl.
JESS OI SSI OSI OIE IE ISIC OSI ISIC SOIC OS IORI O IORI ASI OE SIO CIO AGICEAAGIACE ACHE AAA
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.
JE EROS SCO ISR OBO TSAR BESO DERI ABA AOR AA OKA AERA ADA AA
Fax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
POL00083351
POL00083351
bond, fearce
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PLi 3AE
To: Rowe Cohen
ce:
Fax,
Your ref: MDT.113969
From: Stephen Dilley
GRO
Direct!
Fax
Our ref: SJD3/ABG1/348035.134
Date: 17 November 2005
Number of pages: 3
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
Without p) shudice save as to costs
BY FAXAND DX
Confidentiality notice
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax is confidential and may be legally privileged. If
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents. instead, please noti
as possible and destroy the fax.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
(uilesm
(Gre
CoA
fou are not the intended
the sender as soon
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redclff Street Bristol BS1 68). VAT number GBi43 0282 07,
A list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society.
1A_1090569_1
www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
From: Helen Rumford
Sent: 17 November 2005 14:29
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: Marine Drive
Tam tied up this afternoon. I'll try to get round to before afternoon out though if I possibly can.
sooo Original Message-----
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 14:09
To: Helen Rumford
Subject: FW: Marine Drive
Dear Helen
Please print out all of these and read them then come and let me know what Mr Castelton was complaining about.
Do these help us?
This is urgent because they are helpful I will use them in an application to set aside that I am now making.
Many thanks.
Stephen
From: mandy.talb¢_
Sent: 17 November 2005 13:13
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Marine Drive
Please find attached a schedule of the calls logged with the Horizon Helpline by Castleton during the relevant
period.
Regards
Mandy Talbot
Litigation Team Leader
Company Secretary's Office
Legal Services
Royal Mail, Impact House, 2 Edridge Road, CROYDON, CR9 1PJ
STD Phone: I
: mandy.talb¢™ GRO H
aeons Forwarded by Mandy Talbot/é€/POSTOFFICE on 17/11/2005 12:28
Graham C Ward
To: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE:!
04/11/2005 14:38 Hulbert/e/POSTOFFIC
ce: Mandy Talbot/e/POSTOFF:
Subject: Marine Drive
Dave
Please find attached the details of calls made to the HSH during the January - March period. As you will see there
are references to "discrepancies" which were referred to the NBSC. As stated by Brian Pinder in his e mail dated
2/11/05 , he did not “identify any calls relating to system faults".....
(See attached file: Call Details E-0401200574.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0401280325.htm)(See
attached file: Call Details E-0401290358.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0402020111.htm)(See attached
file: Call Details E-0402130261.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402130267.htm) (See attached file: Call
Details E-0402160081.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402160628.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
1
POL00083351
POL00083351
E-0402250454.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0402250553.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0402250565.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402251011.htm) (See attached file: Call Details
E-0402251077.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0403040165.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0403040524.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0403230583.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0403230628.htm)
If this were a criminal matter, we could ask for a supporting witness statement briefly outlining the nature of the
call and how it was resolved.
My own opinion is that I think the key to this case is how the "discrepancies" were dealt with by the NBSC and
what advice / support the Pmtr was given at the time the original call was made. It seems clear from the above
that the office were experiencing problems. User "error"
deliberate or unwitting seems more likely as opposed to Horizon system faults.
Regards
Graham
Casework Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
VoiceMail:
'2 External Email: graham.c.war¢
Postline: N/A, STD Phone!
N/A, Mobez
JERSE OR SOE SIO BEDOK GEIST SSSI SSSI SISOSIOSI AISI CRIISKAARI AKA AKAGI AK
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.
JESSE IOS ES OBOE SBOR IEE SI EBB SKI ISIC EIS ARI ISIS EA IIIA AAA AK
POL00083351
POL00083351
/
Stephen Dilley
From: mandy.talbot(>
Sent: 17 November 2005 13:13
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Marine Drive
Attachments: Call Details E-0401200574.htm; Call Details E-0401280325.htm; Call Details
E-0401290358.htm; Call Details E-0402020111.htm; Call Details E-0402130261.htm; Call
Details E-0402130267.htm; Call Details E-0402160081.htm; Call Details
E-0402160628.htm; Call Details E-0402250454.htm; Call Details E-0402250553.htm; Call
Details E-0402250565.htm; Call Details E-0402251011.htm; Call Details
E-0402251077.htm; Call Details E-0403040165.htm; Call Details E-0403040524.htm; Call
Details E-0403230583.htm; Call Details E-0403230628.htm
I 6) @4)@ 4) & 4 @
Call Details Call Details Call Details Call Details Call Details Call Details Call Details
-0401200574.htm ..-0401280325.htm ..-0401290358.htm ..-0402020111.htm ..-0402130261.htm ..-0402130267.htm ..-0402160081.htm ..
Call Details Call Details Call Details Call Details Call Details Call Details Call Details
-0402160628.htm .-0402250454.htm ..-0402250553.htm ..-0402250565.htm ..-0402251011.htm ..-0402251077.htm ..-0403040165.htm ..
Call Details Call Details Call Details
-0403040524.htm .-0403230583.htm ..-0403230628.htm ..
Please find attached a schedule of the calls logged with the
Horizon Helpline by Castleton during the relevant period.
Regards
Mandy Talbot
Litigation Team Leader
Company Secretary's Office
Legal Services
Royal Mail, Impact House, 2 Edridge Road, CROYDON, CR9 1PJ
External Email: mandy.talbot
) }
wee Forwarded by Mandy Talbot/é/POSTOFFICE on 17/11/2005 12:28 -----
Graham C Ward
To: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOEEICE.
04/11/2005 14:38 Hulbert/e/POSTOFFICE_
cc: Mandy Talbot/e/POSTO!
Subject: Marine Drive
Please find attached the details of calls made to the HSH during the January - March period. As you will see there
are references to "discrepancies" which were referred to the NBSC. As stated by Brian Pinder in his e mail dated
2/11/05 , he did not "identify any calls relating to system faults".
(See attached file: Call Details E-0401200574.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0401280325.htm)(See
attached file: Call Details E-0401290358.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0402020111.htm)(See attached
file: Call Details E-0402130261.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402130267.htm) (See attached file: Call
Details E-0402160081.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402160628.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0402250454.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0402250553.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0402250565.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402251011.htm) (See attached file: Call Details
1
POL00083351
POL00083351
9402251077.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0403040165.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0403040524.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0403230583.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0403230628.htm)
If this were a criminal matter, we could ask for a supporting witness statement briefly outlining the nature of the
call and how it was resolved.
My own opinion is that I think the key to this case is how the "discrepancies" were dealt with by the NBSC and
what advice / support the Pmtr was given at the time the original call was made. It seems clear from the above
that the office were experiencing problems. User "error"
deliberate or unwitting seems more likely as opposed to Horizon system faults.
Regards
Graham
Casework Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
Postline: N/A. STD. Phone!
N/A, Mobex!, GRO I Mobi
JESS OER S EI IOS SE GOES S ORE ISSA SEKI ADKA ISI AA ACCRA A ASII AAI AAI A AOA AK
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.
JOBE SEIS SEE ARO BIOSCI EEOC OKIE IE IEOCOIEIESEOKIOK ISI III IASI IIA AK AIK I
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
From: Helen Rumford
Sent: 17 November 2005 14:29
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: Marine Drive
Tam tied up this afternoon. I'll try to get round to before afternoon out though if I possibly can.
sees Original Message-----
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 14:09
To: Helen Rumford
Subject: FW: Marine Drive
Dear Helen
Please print out all of these and read them then come and let me know what Mr Castelton was complaining about.
Do these help us?
This is urgent because they are helpful I will use them in an application to set aside that I am now making.
Many thanks.
Stephen
comme Original Message
From: mandy.talbot,
Sent: 17 November 2005 13:T
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Marine Drive
Please find attached a schedule of the calls logged with the Horizon Helpline by Castleton during the relevant
period.
Regards
Mandy Talbot
Litigation Team Leader
Company Secretary's Office
Legal Services
Royal Mail, Impact House, 2 Edridge Road, CROYDON, CR9 1PJ
GRO, STD Phone;
Graham C Ward
To: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFI!
04/11/2005 14:38 Hulbert/e/POSTOFFICE™
cc: Mandy Talbot/e/POSTOFFICE*
Subject: Marine Drive
Please find attached the details of calls made to the HSH during the January - March period. As you will see there
are references to "discrepancies" which were referred to the NBSC. As stated by Brian Pinder in his e mail dated
2/11/05 , he did not “identify any calls relating to system faults"...
(See attached file: Call Details E-0401200574.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0401280325.htm)(See
attached file: Call Details E-0401290358.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0402020111.htm)(See attached
file: Call Details E-0402130261.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402130267.htm) (See attached file: Call
Details E-0402160081.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402160628.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
1
POL00083351
POL00083351
0402250454.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0402250553.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0402250565.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0402251011.htm) (See attached file: Call Details
E-0402251077.htm)(See attached file: Call Details E-0403040165.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0403040524.htm) (See attached file: Call Details E-0403230583.htm)(See attached file: Call Details
E-0403230628.htm)
If this were a criminal matter, we could ask for a supporting witness statement briefly outlining the nature of the
call and how it was resolved.
My own opinion is that I think the key to this case is how the "discrepancies" were dealt with by the NBSC and
what advice / support the Pmtr was given at the time the original call was made. It seems clear from the above
that the office were experiencing problems. User "error"
deliberate or unwitting seems more likely as opposed to Horizon system faults.
Regards
Graham
Casework Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
VoiceMail:
Postline: N/A, STD Phone
{ graham.c.wart
N/A, Mobe:
wpa GRO
External Emai
FEROS SIO ISOS OHSS ISS E ESSE SE REISE ISI ISIDORE AAI SEK AGA AOAC KA HEI A
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.
JORIS EAE E ORO ICI ISOC OSIOCISC ORE EIS ESESSIORISRIOKIERIC ICI ACA AAI ISI AAR ARK I
POL00083351
POL00083351
17 November 2005 Bond Pearce Lup
r allard House
By Fax, West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
VERY URGE! $D3/ABG1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT. 113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
We refer to our fax of 16 November.
(1) Disclosure
We note the comments in your 10 November letter in respect of which our client’s position is fully
reserved.
Standard Disclosure has not even taken place yet, but to try to save costs and settle proceedings at an
early stage, we have already provided you with voluminous disclosure. Fujitsu examined the computer
system at Marine Drive Post Office and confirmed that there were no problems with it. Accordingly, it
would appear to be irrelevant as to whether or not a Sub-Postmaster in Chelmsford experienced any
difficulties.
Our client will, of course, comply with its standard disclosure obligations when these proceedings move on
to service of List of Documents.
(2) Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim
The Claim was served on Mr Castleton on 14 June. You had until 28 June to file a Defence. We gave you
a 28 day extension of time to file the Defence and Counterclaim until 15 August. Mr Castleton therefore
had a total of 63 days to file his Defence and Counterclaim.
Your letter dated 4 November to the High Court makes it clear that you lodged the default judgment
request with Scarborough County Court prior to the transfer to the Central Office. Please confirm the
precise date you filed your request for judgment in default. It appears that you did not extend the same
courtesy to us that we gave to you in terms of extensions of time before your request was filed. Of
course, during the stay period nothing should have been filed as the proceedings are held in abeyance.
The Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim has now been filed and served. In real terms, it took
just 4 days longer than your client did in filing the Defence and Counterclaim.
We refer you to the case of Coll v Tattum Chancery Division, 21 November 2001. In that case an
extension if time for service of a defence under CPR Part 15 was granted whether the defence was prima
facie valid. The Court decided that granting default judgment would have been unjust. Mr Justice
Neuberger stated that
“where, as here, the application for judgment in default is made before the filing of the
acknowledgement of service or filing of a Defence, but a Defence is filed before the hearing
of the application, the proper course in plainly a matter for the court's discretion. In
general, I would have thought that discretion will normally (especially where there is a bona
fide defence) be exercised in favour of extending time...Albeit very late, the Defendants have
come forward with Defences which, on their face, would, if the allegations are made out,
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 0:
Alt of members of Bond pesrce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1090275_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
defeat the claim...it would be quite disproportionate to enter judgment thereby throwing the
onus onto the Defendants requiring them to justify their being given permission to defend...”
We are applying today to the Court for an order permitting the late filing of the Reply to Defence and
Defence to Counterclaim. We invite you to confirm that you agree to this now and also, if any judgment
has been entered in default against our client (although, we have not received one), to agree to set this
aside. We reiterate that we do not believe that either parties’ best interests are served by taking technical
procedural points. It would be inconceivable for the Counterclaim to succeed, if the Court accepts the
Defendant was responsible for the loss of over £27,000. This dispute needs to be fully aired at trial, if it is
not settled beforehand.
Please may we hear from you as soon as possible today.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com P22
1A_1090275_4
POL00083351
POL00083351
17 November 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
VERY URGENT $JD3/ABG1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT. 113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
We refer to our fax of 16 November.
(1) Disclosure
We note the comments in your 10 November letter in respect of which our client’s position is fully
reserved.
Standard Disclosure has not even taken place yet, but to try to save costs and settle proceedings at an
early stage, we have already provided you with voluminous disclosure. Fujitsu examined the computer
system at Marine Drive Post Office and confirmed that there were no problems with it. Accordingly, it
would appear to be irrelevant as to whether or not a Sub-Postmaster in Chelmsford experienced any
difficulties.
Our client will, of course, comply with its standard disclosure obligations when these proceedings move on
to service of List of Documents.
(2) Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim
The Claim was served on Mr Castleton on 14 June. You had until 28 June to file a Defence. We gave you
a 28 day extension of time to file the Defence and Counterclaim until 15 August. Mr Castleton therefore
had a total of 63 days to file his Defence and Counterclaim.
Your letter dated 4 November to the High Court makes it clear that you lodged the default judgment
request with Scarborough County Court prior to the transfer to the Central Office. Please confirm the
precise date you filed your request for judgment in default. It appears that you did not extend the same
courtesy to us that we gave to you in terms of extensions of time before your request was filed. Of
course, during the stay period nothing should have been filed as the proceedings are held in abeyance.
The Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim has now been filed and served. In real terms, it took
just 4 days longer than your client did in filing the Defence and Counterclaim.
We refer you to the case of Coll v Tattum Chancery Division, 21 November 2001. In that case an
extension if time for service of a defence under CPR Part 15 was granted whether the defence was prima
facie valid. The Court decided that granting default judgment would have been unjust. Mr Justice
Neuberger stated that
*,.where, as here, the application for judgment in default is made before the filing of the
acknowledgement of service or filing of a Defence, but a Defence is filed before the hearing
of the application, the proper course in plainly a matter for the court’s discretion. In
general, I would have thought that discretion will normally (especially where there is a bona
fide defence) be exercised in favour of extending time...Albeit very late, the Defendants have
come forward with Defences which, on their face, would, if the allegations are made out,
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Pertnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol BS1 68). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A\list of members of Bond Pearce Is open for Inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1090275_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
defeat the claim...it would be quite disproportionate to enter judgment thereby throwing the
onus onto the Defendants requiring them to justify their being given permission to defend...”
We are applying today to the Court for an order permitting the late filing of the Reply to Defence and
Defence to Counterclaim. We invite you to confirm that you agree to this now and also, if any judgment
has been entered in default against our client (although, we have not received one), to agree to set this
aside. We reiterate that we do not believe that either parties’ best interests are served by taking technical
procedural points. It would be inconceivable for the Counterclaim to succeed, if the Court accepts the
Defendant was responsible for the loss of over £27,000. This dispute needs to be fully aired at trial, if it is
not settled beforehand.
Please may we hear from you as soon as possible today.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com P22
1A_1090275_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
bend farce
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Fax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
To: Rowe Cohen
cc: Your ref: MDT.113969
From: Stephen Dilley Our ref: $JD3/ABG1/348035.134
Direct{” G RO 7 Date: 17 November 2005
Fax: +
Number of pages: 3 Urgent
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
/
es “
BY FAX AND DX
Confidentiality notice
IMPORTANT - The information in this fax is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the Intended
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents. Instead, please notity the sender as soon
as possible and destroy the fax.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Rediff Street Bristol BS1 68). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. © www.bondpearce.com
3A_1090422_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
17 November 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
By Fax
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Our ref:
$)D3/ABG1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Without prejudice save as to costs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
We refer to our fax of 16 November. We have the following comments on your fax of 8 November:
1.
Why are you perplexed? You know that Ms Gammack has left the office and it is understandable that
her successor would need some time to read into voluminous documents and take instructions.
During this time the employees of the Post Office dealing with this case also changed and we are now
instructed by the Post Office’s Legal Services team in Croydon.
You state that Mr Castleton is only willing to even contemplate mediation after certain conditions,
including disclosure. We have not even reached the standard disclosure stage of this case yet, but in
order to see whether an early conclusion could be reached in this matter, we have already disclosed
numerous documents. This includes the final audit, weekly snapshots, final cash accounts, cash on
hand/declared cash and weekly cash flow and Giro deposits/withdrawals. Your expert reports concede
that the daily snapshots for week 49 does not necessarily mean that an error has been replicated for
other weeks.
We have already confirmed that our client has been making every attempt to locate the documents
you have requested, although since you made your initial disclosure requests we have supplied you
with many documents and it is unclear precisely what the balance of information is that you are
seeking. Is it just the particular documents mentioned in Bentley Jennison’s report? Are you stating
that if our client does not locate the documents, Mr Castleton’s position is that he will not mediate?
We note your request for disclosure of all such documentation in relation to disputes arising with the
operation of Horizon. However:
(a) CPR 31.22 states that a party to whom a document has been disclosed may only use that
document for the purposes of those proceedings in which it is disclosed. Accordingly, if there are
other proceedings involving the Horizon system (as to which the writer is unaware) then disclosure
made to the Post Office in those proceedings is not permitted in this claim.
(b) CPR 31.7 provides that when giving disclosure, a party is required to make a reasonable search for
documents and the factors in deciding the reasonableness of the search include the number of.
documents involved, the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the ease and expense of
retrieval of any particular document and the significance of any document which is likely to be
located during the search. Your request appears to be very broad and vague and it is not currently
clear precisely what it is you are seeking. Having regard to the disclosure rules, we do not believe
that it would be reasonable for the Post Office to search and disclose this category of documents.
In any event, this aspect of your disclosure request appears to be superseded by your 10 November
letter in which you state that you already have this sort of information that your client has obtained
directly from other Sub-Postmasters.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number OC313430)
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 1 cliff Street Bristol BS1 65). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Ailgt'of members of Bond Pearce Is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society www.bondpearce.com
44_1090251_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
5. Irrespective of the above, it is clear that you have already formed a view on your client’s case and you
will doubtless air those views during any mediation. The reality is that after disclosure, both parties
will have incurred significantly further costs and that even more will be at stake and positions will be
more entrenched. It is unconstructive and untrue to suggest that parties can only mediate successfully
after disclosure and that the parties cannot try to settle the case at an early stage based on the
information then available. Accordingly, we believe that it would be most cost effective to mediate
now. If, however, you refuse to do so, then at the next Case Management Conference we will seek a
stay of the claim in order that the parties can attempt to settle and we will certainly refer to this
exchange of correspondence on the question of costs.
Please take your client's instructions and revert to us.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com P22
4A_1090251_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
$9D3/ABG1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Without prejudice save as to costs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
We refer to our fax of 16 November. We have the following comments on your fax of 8 November:
1. Why are you perplexed? You know that Ms Gammack has left the office and it is understandable that
her successor would need some time to read into voluminous documents and take instructions.
During this time the employees of the Post Office dealing with this case also changed and we are now
instructed by the Post Office’s Legal Services team in Croydon.
2. You state that Mr Castleton is only willing to even contemplate mediation after certain conditions,
including disclosure. We have not even reached the standard disclosure stage of this case yet, but in
order to see whether an early conclusion could be reached in this matter, we have already disclosed
numerous documents. This includes the final audit, weekly snapshots, final cash accounts, cash on
hand/declared cash and weekly cash flow and Giro deposits/withdrawals. Your expert reports concede
that the daily snapshots for week 49 does not necessarily mean that an error has been replicated for
other weeks.
3. We have already confirmed that our client has been making every attempt to locate the documents
you have requested, although since you made your initial disclosure requests we have supplied you
with many documents and it is unclear precisely what the balance of information is that you are
seeking. Is it just the particular documents mentioned in Bentley Jennison’s report? Are you stating
that if our client does not locate the documents, Mr Castleton’s position is that he will not mediate?
4. We note your request for disclosure of all such documentation in relation to disputes arising with the
operation of Horizon. However:
(a) CPR 31.22 states that a party to whom a document has been disclosed may only use that
document for the purposes of those proceedings in which it is disclosed. Accordingly, if there are
other proceedings involving the Horizon system (as to which the writer is unaware) then disclosure
made to the Post Office in those proceedings is not permitted in this claim.
(b) CPR 31.7 provides that when giving disclosure, a party is required to make a reasonable search for
documents and the factors in deciding the reasonableness of the search include the number of
documents involved, the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the ease and expense of
retrieval of any particular document and the significance of any document which is likely to be
located during the search. Your request appears to be very broad and vague and it is not currently
clear precisely what it is you are seeking. Having regard to the disclosure rules, we do not believe
that it would be reasonable for the Post Office to search and disclose this category of documents.
In any event, this aspect of your disclosure request appears to be superseded by your 10 November
letter in which you state that you already have this sort of information that your client has obtained
directly from other Sub-Postmasters.
Bond Pearce LLP, 2 Limited Lablity Partnership. Registered in England and Wales qumber OC3314
Registered office: Bristol Budge House Lab-144 Recut Strect Briel Bel GBD, VAT number Gbi43 0282 07.
A‘ibt of members of Bond Pesrce's open for inspection at the registered office, Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1090251_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
5. Irrespective of the above, it is clear that you have already formed a view on your client’s case and you
will doubtless air those views during any mediation. The reality is that after disclosure, both parties
will have incurred significantly further costs and that even more will be at stake and positions will be
more entrenched. It is unconstructive and untrue to suggest that parties can only mediate successfully
after disclosure and that the parties cannot try to settle the case at an early stage based on the
information then available. Accordingly, we believe that it would be most cost effective to mediate
now. If, however, you refuse to do so, then at the next Case Management Conference we will seek a
stay of the claim in order that the parties can attempt to settle and we will certainly refer to this
exchange of correspondence on the question of costs.
Please take your client’s instructions and revert to us.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com P22
4A_1090251_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 2
Stephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 10:35
To: ‘mandy.talbot
Ce: ‘cheryl. woodward
Subject: FW: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Dear Mandy,
I refer to my email of 16 November and attach a draft fax that I propose to despatch to Mr
Castleton's solicitors for your approval. I would like to discuss my comments in that fax about
disclosure with you, before it is sent.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
Sent: 16 November 2005 19:31 -— ~
To: ‘mandy.talbot@_ ; ‘cheryl woodward_.,... GRO _ x
Subject: FW: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Dear Mandy and Cheryl,
I tried to contact you both today, but you were not available.
1. Mandy, please can you let me know whether the Post Office has experienced widespread
problems with Horizon? Mr Castleton's solicitors are seeking disclosure of this sort of
information before they agree to mediate. If it would be difficult for you to find out this
information, please can you give me an idea of how and why it would be difficult (and
expensive) to retrieve it? (eg perhaps there are no central records). This will give me some
ammunition to go back to Mr Castleton's solicitors with to explain why the Post Office does not
feel it is appropriate to disclose it and to try to persuade them to mediate sooner rather than
later.
2. Cheryl, I know you say the paperwork removed form Marine Drive can't now be found, but
did the Post Office keep a list of what items it removed? Do you know that the Post Office
definitely removed the documents Mr Castleton seeks? Do you have the contact details for Mrs
Oglesby so that I can discuss this with her? She will be an important witness.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible,
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
17/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 2
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 11 November 2005 14:06
To: 'mandy.talbot¢~
Subject: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Dear Mandy and Cheryl,
Thanks, Cheryl, for your e-mail of 10 November.
I note that the Post Office is not able to find the documents which it removed from the sub post
office. These documents are crucial to Mr Castleton's Defence and the Court will draw adverse
inferences if we are not able to produce them. This reinforces my view that we should seek an
early settlement.
I attach a letter dated 10 November 2005 from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond Pearce for your
information, together with an article from the November 2005 edition of the Sub-Postmaster
Magazine in which a sub-postmaster in Chelmsford complains of problems with the operation of
the Horizon computer system. Other sub-postmasters' problems are in my view irrelevant to
the issue of whether the Horizon worked for Mr Castleton, unless there is evidence of
widespread problems. Mr Castleton's specific point is that there are widespread problems with
Horizon and accordingly he should not have been dismissed.
Mandy, I look forward to hearing from you in relation to my 9 November letter. If it will be
helpful to discuss things over the phone, please do not hesitate to contact me on telephone
number:
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
17/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
17 November 2005 Bond Pearce Lip
{ allard House
By Fax West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
$JD3/ABG1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Without prejudice save as to costs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
We refer to our fax of 16 November. We have the following comments on your x of 8 November:
1. Why are you perplexed? You know that Ms Gammack has ht ‘office and it is understandable that
2. You state that Mr Casiteton is only willing to even cont
including disclosure. We have not even reached the standard dist
order to see whether an early conclusion could be reached in:
numerous documents. This includes the final audit, weekly Snapshots, final cash accounts, cash on
hand/declared cash and weekly cash flow'and.Giro deposits/withdrawals. Your expert reports concede
that the daily snapshots for week 49 does ni essarily mean thatan error has been replicated for
other weeks. : %
ure stage of this case yet, but in
latter, we have already disclosed
3. In any event, we have already confirmed that our client ha: been. making every attempt to locate the
documents you have requested. Are you stating thay if our client does not locate the documents, Mr
Castleton’s position is tha ill not mediate?
isclosure of all such documentation in relation to disputes arising with the
wever:
4. We note your request fo!
operation of Horizon.
(a) CPR 31.22 states that’a party:to whom a document has been disclosed may only use that
document for the pury ‘hose proceedings in which it is disclosed. Accordingly, if there are
ings involving the Horizon system (as to which the writer is unaware) then disclosure
Office in those proceedings is not permitted in this claim.
(b) CPR 31.7 provides that when giving disclosure, a party is required to make a reasonable search for
documents and the factors in deciding the reasonableness of the search include the number of
“doc nature and complexity of the proceedings, the ease and expense of
retrieval of any partic document and the significance of any document which is likely to be
located during the search. Having regard to the disclosure rules, we do not believe that it would be
reasonable for the Post Office to search and disclose this category of documents.
asi jitsu revigives tip
fosure request seats me Hy desi
5. In any event, this aspect of your disclosure request appears to be superseded by your 10 November
letter in which you state that you already have this sort of information that your client has obtained
directly from other Sub-Postmasters.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C3114;
Registered office: bristol Bridge House 138-141 Recuiff Street Bristol Bot B5- VAT number Geias C282 07.
A'list of members of Bond Pearce Is open for inspection at the registered office, Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1090251_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
6. Irrespective of the above, it is clear that you have already formed a view on your client’s case and you
will doubtless air those views during any mediation. The reality is that after disclosure, both parties
will have incurred significantly further costs and that even more will be at stake and positions will be
more entrenched. It is unconstructive and untrue to suggest that parties can only mediate successfully
after disclosure and that the parties cannot try to settle the case at an early stage based on the
information then available. Accordingly, we believe that it would be most cost effective to mediate
now. If, however, you refuse to do so, then at the next Case Management Conference we will seek a
stay of the claim in order that the parties can attempt to settle and we will certainly refer to this
exchange of correspondence on the question of costs.
Please take your client’s instructions and revert to us.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com P22
1A 1090251_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
_ aphen Dilley
From: cheryl.woodwardi" "GRO k
Sent: 17 November 20b9-v0-4: *
To: cath.oglesby/{ i
Ce: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Urgent Re: FW: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Hi Cath
Could you please contact Stephen Dilley at Bond Pearce Solicitors in relation to Lee Castleton formally of Marine
Drive Po. They need to know what documentation was removed from the office.
Stephen
Hi Stephen
As you can see I have asked Cath to contact you but here is her number anyway {
Thanks Cheryl.
JESS ODO ISOS ORO ISIE AROSE IASI EKIOKIE IESE SSI IRIOKIGI OCIA ICI ITA AIK AK
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.
JESS OOOO IO OS IORI IS IORIOS ORI IIE ASE G SORIA OBEA ATID AAI IRI ACACIA AEA ACA AK
Fax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
POL00083351
POL00083351
bard. learce
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
To: Rowe Cohen
cc:
Faxit
GRO
Your ref? MOT 113969
Bi!
From: Stephen Dilley
Our ref: SJD3/ABG1/348035.134
Date: 16 November 2005
Number of pages: 3
Urgent
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
BY FAX AND Dj
Confidentiality notice
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax is confidential and may be let
ally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, pleage do not use, disclose, copy or distbute its converts, Enstead, please notify the sender as s00n
a5 possible and destroy the fax.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Re
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Re
istered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
cliff Street Bristol BS1 68). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A\list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society.
1410902111
wT.
rz)
ihe or
www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
URGENT SJD3/SIR2/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT. 113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
Thank you for your fax dated 16 November. We have the following comments in response:
1. You are incorrect to state that our client’s Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim is over
two months out of time. The claim was stayed for one month from 4 October to 3 November, for
settlement. Given that there was a stay, nothing needed to be filed during this period and the
time does not run during the stay. Ms Gammack has now left this firm but we have asked her to
comment on your assertions. Our position is fully reserved.
2. We are surprised that you have made an application for Default Judgment, given that you
confirmed Mr Castleton was willing to participate in a mediation after standard disclosure. Why
would the standard disclosure stage of proceedings take place if a default judgment was obtained,
triggering a hearing on quantum? Your client’s position is misleading. We will revert to you
separately on the question of disclosure.
3. In any event, you state that the onus is on us to set aside your client’s Judgment in Default but we
have not received any Judgment in Default against our client. If you have received a copy, please
send this to us. The only Judgment in Default we have received is against your client. As no
Judgment in Default has been entered against our client, your client is not entitled to do so given
that our Defence to Counterclaim has been served and filed before any Judgment has been
entered.
4. If the Court does enter Judgment in Default against our client, we are instructed to immediately
apply to set it aside. The Court may set aside a Default Judgment if the Defendant has a real
prospect of successfully defending the claim or there is some other good reason why the
Defendant should be allowed to defend the claim. If the Court accepts at trial that your client has
negligently, carelessly and/or in error failed to account for over £27,000, then it would be
incongruous for the Counterclaim to succeed. The Claim and Counterclaim are intertwined and
there needs to be a full trial of the issues they raise. We will refer to the fact that Fujitsu Services
examined the computer system and confirmed that the discrepancies were caused by the
difference between the transactions that were recorded on the system and the cash that was
declared and were not caused by the system’s software or hardware. In the light of this
examination, we firmly believe that the Post Office claim has much more than a real prospect of
success. Accordingly, if it necessary for us to apply to set aside any Judgment in Default, we
invite you to consent to it now. If an application proves necessary, then we will refer to this fax on
the question of costs.
5. If no Judgment in Default has been entered against our client, then we invite you to immediately
confirm to the Court, copying us in, that you will withdraw your application.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1090155_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
We do not believe that either parties’ interests are best served by interim applications taking technical
points on procedure that will ultimately do little other than to increase the costs and entrench positions.
We do believe that the best outcome would be for the claim to be stayed to allow a mediation to take
place and will seek a stay at the next directions hearing.
Please let us have your response by return.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com P22
1A_1090155_1
Fax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
POL00083351
POL00083351
Band. fearce
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
To: Judgments and Orders Section
cc:
Royal Courts of Justice Fay
oe
Your ref:
From: Stephen Dilley
Our ref; SJD3/HR1/348035.134
Date: 15 November 2005
Number of pages:
weer
Confidentiality notice
IZ Ss Shur jos
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents. Instead, please notify the sender as soon
8 possible and destroy the fax.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Re
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Re:
istered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
cliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A 1089512_1
& DX
Her Majestys Court Service
Judgments and Orders
Room No E15
Royal Courts of Justice
Dear Sir/Madam
HQO5X02706
Post Office Limited v Mr Lee Castleton
We act for the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant in the above matter.
POL00083351
POL00083351
c
¢
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Our ref:
$9D3/LIP1/348035.134
Your ref:
Please find enclosed our client’s Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim for filing.
We confirm that we have today served the same on the Defendant.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-14
1A_1089495_1
1 Redciff Street Bristol 8S1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A\list of members of Bond Pearce Is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society.
www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Brod. frarce
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PLi 3AE
Fax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
To: Mark Turner Rowe Cohen Solicitors Fax
cc:
Your ref: MDT.113969
From: Stephen Dilley
Our ref: SJD3/HR1/348035.134
Date: 15 November 2005
Number of pages:
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
’ a
on D
Yon <
AS OS shi I “S
eS > med Us
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax is confidential and may be le
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents.
ally privileged. If you are not the intended
as possible and destroy the fax.
instead, please notify the sender as soon
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce Is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Soclety. I Www.bondpearce.com
1A_1089510_1
Rowe Cohen
-Salicitnes
Dear Sirs
Post Office Limited v Mr L Castleton
POL00083351
POL00083351
f
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Our ref:
$JD3/HR1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Please find enclosed by way of service our client’s Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim.
We confirm we have today filed the same with the Court.
We regret that negotiations appear to have come to a halt and would suggest that we now proceed to
mediation without any further unnecessary delay.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430,
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redciff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Allist of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society.
1A_1089504_1
www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Ded ba
Telephone attendance
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Helen Rumford Location: N/A Date: 15 November 2005
Start time: Units:
ATTENDING (OUT) the court and explaining the situation and saying that we did intend to file
the defence to counterclaim today. HR asking whether it would be likely that the order
would be amended to be judgment for the defendant. However, the person I was speaking
to said he was only a trainee and had not dealt with judgment before but did say that there
was a note on the screen dated 10 November to say that no defence to the counterclaim had
been filed.
He was unable to help me further.
Units
HRI
1A_1089460_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Julian Summerhayes Location: N/A Date: 15 November 2005
Start time: Units:
JMS1 attending OUT on Mandy Talbot and discussing matters. JMS1 wanted to know whether
there was any evidence at all of the monies that were alleged by Royal Mail to be
outstanding? MT indicating that she had gone through the file but was certainly not able to
find any manual documents to confirm this. JMS1 talking through a few of the issues in the
Reply and Defence to Counterclaim and saying he had slightly amended that from the
version that had been sent through earlier. JMS1 would send that through via HR1's email
address. MT talking about getting tired with this case. She was still not sure why the firm
had been given instructions to issue. She will revert soonest.
2 units
41A_1090151_1
Work chit
POL00083351
POL00083351
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton
Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Julian Summerhayes Location: N/A Date: 15 November 2005
Start time: Units:
JMS1 amending Reply and Defence to Counterclaim and HR1 emailing that to the client.
5 units
1A_1090149_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Note
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Julian Summerhayes Location: N/A Date: 15 November 2005
Start time: Units:
JMS1 discussing with HR1 the basis of the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim. JMS1 going through CPR
Part 16 with her.
3 units.
1A_1090024_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 4
Stephen
From: Rebecca Chappell
Sent: 14 November 2005 16:37
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Stephen
Please find the Lawtel summary of the relevant case below, in which judgment was given to the
subpostmaster due to lack of original documentation.
As discussed, the cases I have worked on where the lack of evidence issue arose either settled
(without entering into a substantial discussion on this point) or we got judgment based on the
subpostmaster's weak defence.
Sorry I can't be of more help - good luck!
Rebecca
POST OFFICE COUNTERS LTD v TARLA MAHIDA (2003)
CA (Hale LJ, Kay LJ) 22/10/2003
CIVIL PROCEDURE - CIVIL EVIDENCE
DESTROYED EVIDENCE : SECONDARY EVIDENCE : RELIABILITY : ADMISSIBILITY :
POST OFFICES : SUB-POST MISTRESSES : DISCREPANCIES : SCHEDULES : ACCOUNTS :
RECOVERY OF SUMS : FAIRNESS : FAIR TRIALS : PRIMARY EVIDENCE : DEBTORS :
CREDITORS : CASE MANAGEMENT : DISCRETION : PROOF OF DEBT : CIVIL
PROCEDURE RULES 1998 SI 1998/3132 : CPR : CPR PART 31
Where a creditor was relying upon discrepancies in documents submitted by the debtor, and
the debtor was requesting details of the claim, the creditor could not be said to have discharged
the burden of proving the debt when it was responsible for destroying the primary evidence
said to have proved that debt. That was a factor that should have weighed heavily in the
judge's determination of whether the debt had been proved by the secondary evidence.
Appeal by the defendant ('M’) from the decision of HH Judge Perry dated 31 October 2002, giving
judgment in favour of the claimant ('P') and dismissing the counterclaim. M was employed as a sub-
post mistress from 1988 until she was suspended in October 1994 and her contract terminated in
1995, The grounds of the termination were that P had found discrepancies in M's claims for
payments in respect of Department of Social Security (‘DSS') payments that had been made by M. In
September 1997 P issued these proceedings seeking recover of sums said to have been due which
represented the discrepancies in the payments. M denied liability and counterclaimed for breach of
contract. The judge found the claim made out and dismissed the counterclaim. By this appeal M
claimed that she was denied a fair trial since the documentation relied upon by the judge was
secondary evidence as to the alleged deficiencies. That evidence amounted to schedules drawn up by
P which related to claim forms and receipts submitted by M when she had sought the payments.
However, the actual documentation that was set out in those schedules was not adduced as evidence
by P since it had either been destroyed by P or by the DSS in the usual course of document
destruction. M argued that although the secondary evidence was admissible evidence, the judge was
wrong to have admitted it or accept it as proving P's case. Accordingly, M argued that the judge
21/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 4
sh. .d have exercised his discretion under CPR Part 31 and refused to admit the secondary evidence.
HELD: (1) There was no doubt that the secondary evidence was admissible evidence. The power
was principally a case management power designed to allow the court to stop cases getting out of
hand. It would have been a harsh decision to have shut P out of its claim and the possibility of a
defence to the counterclaim because of the non-existence of the original documents. Accordingly,
the judge could not be said to have been plainly wrong in the exercise of his discretion to admit the
evidence. (2) Nevertheless, there was a substantial unfairness in the process. M had requested sight
of the original documents from a very early stage, but there were two key failures by P. Firstly, there
was delay in P's response to M's request to see the documents, and secondly, P had failed to take
proper care of the original documents which were the foundation of its claim. Those matters went to
the weight accorded to the secondary evidence being admitted. (3) Whilst the judge could not be
faulted for concluding that the secondary evidence entitled him to find that there had been an
increased claim over a particular period, and that the evidence supported the dismissal of M's
counterclaim, it was a separate issue as to whether the secondary evidence was of sufficient weight
to prove the precise amount of debt that was said to have been due. Where a creditor was relying
upon discrepancies in documents submitted by the debtor, and the debtor was requesting details of
the claim, the creditor could not be said to have discharged the burden of proving the debt when it
was responsible for destroying the primary evidence said to have proved the debt. That was a factor
that should have weighed heavily in the judge's determination of whether the debt had been proved.
(4) Whilst the secondary evidence did go some way, coupled with further evidence in the case, to
prove some of the debt owed, it did not prove all of the claimed sums and accordingly the judge's
order was substituted for one that only contained those sums proved. On that limited basis the appeal
was allowed.
Appeal allowed.
David Craig instructed by Legal Services Royal Mail Group Ple for P. Mr J Kenny instructed by the
Pro Bono Unit for M.
LTL 22/10/2003 EXTEMPORE : Times, October
31, 2003
Document No. AC9900565
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 14 November 2005 14:16
To: Rebecca Chappell
Subject: FW: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Rebecca,
I understand you have had to mediate RM claims in the past and address a documentation
problem. I have a similar problem with a case that Iam running for them. Please could you
give me a call this afternoon to discuss?
Many thanks,
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and.
DDI: +
Main office phon
Fax:
21/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 3 of 4
wy .bondpearce.com
From: Stephen Lister
Sent: 07 November 2005 10:42
To: Stephen Dilley
Cc: Tom Beezer
Subject: RE: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Thank you Stephen.
Lack of documentary evidence has been a problem for RM in the past and there is a history of
findings against them on the basis that they could not prove their debt. If this case will
effectively put the Horizon system on trial, I agree that RM should seek to mediate a
settlement. Rebecca Chappell has successfully mediated RM claims in the past and you should
speak to her as she has also had to address the problem of lack of documentation. She may
have some suggestions.
I am copying this email to Tom Beezer as he is the client care partner for RM litigation.
Regards,
Stephen
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 07 November 2005 10:01
To: Stephen Lister
Subject: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Dear Stephen,
As you are the relationship partner for the Royal Mail, I thought it would be helpful to update
you in relation to a case I am dealing with for them in case Mandy Talbot mentions it. I
recently inherited this case from Denise Gammack when she left the firm, who in turn inherited
it from Laura Peto in CMS.
Mr Castleton ("Mr C") was a subpostmaster from July 2003 to March 2004. The Post Office
a claim against him for approximately £27,115.83 plus interest and costs in respect of net
losses. The real issue is whether there has been any real shortfall, or whether the shortfall has
really been generated by computer error. Mr Castleton believes the post offices’ weekly
snapshots are inaccurate. Mr C has a wrongful termination claim for up to £250,000 but those
losses have not yet been particularised.
The claim has been issued, a defence and counterclaim served, and the case was stayed for
settlement. Mr C has obtained 2 experts' reports which conclude that the
P.O's Horizon computer system, despite the suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the
entry on the daily snapshot and that Mr Castleton's Defence, "appears to hold potential merit
based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed.
I have asked the P.O to produce some more documents to try to strengthen their claim, but
they are struggling to do so. Given the nature of Mr Castleton's Defence, I suspect that the
Court will draw adverse inferences against the Post Office if it is unable to produce relevant
documents that could either help or hinder its case.
My view is either that we should obtain the documents to prove the claim is true, or take an
early view that it is unlikely to succeed and seek an early settlement (which may even ona
worst case scenario involve making a payment to Mr Castleton).
We take instructions from Cheryl Woodward, Agents Debt Team, Chesterfield but Mandy Talbot
is copied in on emails. I spoke to Mandy last week to take instructions and her first question
was why Bond Pearce had issued a claim when liability was unclear. I informed Mandy that my
21/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 4 of 4
cc agues had expressed concern to Cheryl about issuing.
(There is an attendance note of a telecon between Laura and Richard Benton (Service
Management Section) on file dated 20 April "LRB expressing concern that she would only want
to issue if she was entirely satisfied there were no holes in the evidence which would make the
claim fail” and letter from Laura to Cheryl dated 10 May stating "...although you have instructed
me to issue proceedings, I am reluctant to do so with the knowledge that some vital evidence
may be missing. In particular, some balance snapshots and documents for Week 51 and 52 are
missing together with an audit trail. The debtor's solicitors claim that these documents are
pivotal..." and email from Laura to Cheryl of 24 May "...it will damage the claim if we are unable
to provide evidence pivotal to the claim." Laura was then told to issue a claim without this
information.
Mandy's next comment was that Cheryl may not have had authority to tell Laura to issue a
claim but I was able to tell Mandy that Cheryl had referred this question to her Managers before
instruction Laura to proceed.
In any event, Mandy has instructed me to put forward an offer of mediation to try to settle the
claim. In the meantime, she will try to obtain more info to support the P.O's claim.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
21/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
om: cheryl. woodward GRO j
Sent: 10 November 2005 68:
To: Stephen Dilley vo
Ce: mandy.talbot”""""GRO 3 Jennifer.robson
carol.king’~~ T Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Post Of istleton
Attachments: C.htm; Ecopy Scan.pdf
C.htm (3 KB) copy Scan.pdf
(408 KB)
Hi Stephen
In regards to your letter.
The paperwork which was removed from Marine Drive Po unfortunately cannot be found.
Cheryl.
To: — <mandy.talbd
cc: <cheryl.woodwarc._
Subject: Post Office -v- Lee Cas'
09/11/2005 16:15
Please see attached.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
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: Bristol Bridge House, 138-141 Redcliff Street, Bristol,
BS1 6B).
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.
(See attached file: C.htm)
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 16 November 2005
Your ref: SJD3/FAC1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for:
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
ROWE COHEN
SOLICITORS
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
PLYMOUTH
By DX and Fax
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your letter of 15 November.
Your client’s Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim is over two months out of time. It should be no
surprise to you that judgment in default has been entered against your client. We indicated to your Denise
Gammack during a telephone conversation on 15 September that we had applied for judgment in default given
the failure to file a Defence to Counterclaim within the mandated period.
Ms Gammack indicated that she had been out of the office at the relevant time and had understood that one of
her colleagues had attended to filing it with the court. Despite this apparent “oversight”, you have made no
attempt until now to either serve a Defence and Counterclaim on us or to apply to the court for relief from
sanction and a retrospective extension of time to do so. This is consistent with the general approach that your
client appears to have taken to this litigation as a whole.
The onus is very firmly on your client to apply to the court for relief from sanction and to set aside our client’s
judgment in default. It will not come as any surprise to you that any such application at the case management
conference listed for 6 December will be vigorously opposed. Your client’s own inaction and failure to make
a prompt application for relief from sanction should now preclude the court from exercising any discretion in
its favour.
We have made our position regarding mediation abundantly clear in our letter of 8 November. The ball is in
your court.
Yours faithfully
way House ¢ Quay Sereet # Manchester M
Partners: SE. Cohen + I.Rowe » Dy. Horwich * LN. Lewis # M.V.Hymanson » GP Smal # A, Dennison © 8:7. Coghlan » JV. Dwek » A. Farley * A Sacks © A Taylor
M.C.Woodall « RJ.Sproston » S.Room # A. Cunwen * RJ. Myer» H. Burns » SP.Sucton Associates: LE Swerling + AO. Owens » M, Molloy + PSampson Consultant: M.T: Horwich
Sneath
YP Bom rogue by the Law Sexi
1105 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
‘GAMARKTBBEYICASTLETON\6 105 LETTER TO
Also at London PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
Stephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 16 November 2005 17:31
To: ‘denisegammack
Subject: The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton
Attachments: Ecopy Scan.pdf
Dear Denise,
I hope you are well and enjoying life at Stones.
The Post Office -v- Mr L. Castleton claim continues. Mr Castleton's solicitors have made a
comment about a telecon with you on 15 September and I'd appreciate your feedback before I
go back to them on this point. Please see attached.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and.on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
16/11/2005
16 November 2005
By Email denisegammac;
GRO «kK & Post
Ms D Gammack
Stones
Solicitors
Linacre House
Southernhay Gardens
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Direct:
Our ref:
Exeter S1D3/ABG1/348035.134
EX1 1UG Your ref:
Dear Denise
Post Office Limited -v- Mr L Castleton
You will previously recall dealing with this matter whilst you were still at Bond Pearce LLP. You emailed me
about it on 29 September and I have taken it over since you have left.
After you left, the Court ordered there to be a stay on the case for a month and that has now expired. We
are trying to seek a settlement, but Mr Castleton has applied for a Judgment in Default. I can see from
the file that we received the Defence and Counterclaim on 15 August, so the Reply to Defence and
Defence to Counterclaim ought to have been filed by around 29 August (i.e. within 14 days).
T attach a copy fax dated 16 November from Mr Castleton’s solicitors in which they state that they
informed you in a telephone conversation on 15 September that they had applied for Judgment in Default
given the failure to file a Defence to Counterclaim within the mandated period. They state that you told
them you had been out of the office at the relevant time and had understood that one of your colleagues
had attended to filing it with the Court. I have looked on the file for a copy of your attendance note
recording your conversation with Mr Castleton’s solicitors on 15 September, but I cannot find anything.
However, you have recorded a time entry on that date being a telephone call from Mr Castleton’s solicitors
in which the description states “Mark Turner from Rowe Cohen”.
What I would like to do is to set the record straight with Mr Castleton’s solicitors as to what was said on 15
September, but before I can do so, I would appreciate your comments. Please can you recall what was
said in that conversation and confirm whether:
1. Rowe & Co are correct that you did inform them that one of your colleagues had filed the Reply to
Defence and Defence to Counterclaim at Court because you were away at the relevant time (i.e.
during August); and
2. You did believe that the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim had been filed and if so, who
you thought had filed it? I cannot find a record of a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim on
iManage dated around August or anybody's time on the system to suggest who may have dealt with it
in your absence in August.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible and thank you in anticipation of your assistance.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce Is open for inspection at the registered office, Regulated by the Law Soclety. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1090159_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 16{November 2005
Your ref: SID3/FACI/348035.134
» Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for:
Direct dial: i
Direct fax : i ROWE COHEN
E-mail: L SOLICITORS
: \
Bond Pearce
By DX pad Fax
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your Jetterlof 15 November.
Your client’s Reply toIDefence and Defence to Counterclaim is over two months out of time. It should be no
surprise to you that judgment in default has been entered against your client. We indicated to your Denise
Gammiack during a telephone conversation on 15 September that we had applied for judgment in default given
the failure to file a Defence to Counterclaim within the mandated period.
Ms Gammack indicated that she had been out of the office at the relevant time and had understood that one of
her colleagues had attended to filing it with the court. Despite this apparent “oversight”, you have made no
attempt until now to either serve a Defence and Counterclaim on us or to apply to the court for relief from
sanction and a retrospective extension of time to do so. This is consistent with the general approach that your
client appears to have taken to this litigation as a whole.
The onus is very firmly on your client to apply to the court for relief from sanction and to set aside our client's
judgment in default. It will not come as any surprise to you that any such application at the case management
conference listed for 6 December will be vigorously opposed. Your client’s own inaction and failure to make
a prompt application for relief from sanction should now preclude the court from exercising any discretion in
its favour. fl
‘We have made our pokition regarding mediation abundantly clear in our letter of 8 November. The ball is in
your court.
GRO
ROWE COHEN
Quay House * Qui
ie + MM. Hymarson « GPSmall « A. Dennison © BT. Coghlan + j§D
+ Ry.Myer © H. burns » SP Suman Amoctaten: LE Swaring » AD, ©.
ke» A Farley «A Sache * AToyior
Hi. Motoy = RSampron Coneuteane 7. Horwich
2 $.E Cohen * LRowe * Oi .
MHC. Weodall = Rj.Shrostan « $,Room » A.C
‘This & reaulene by the Low Sectcy 4 ee
Alsat London I oonmaxrasnencasrteronisioglar Ret poe 2
16-NOV-2885 89:53 95% P.82
‘A list of members or ovnw rea
1A_1089504_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
$ID3/SR2/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
Thank you for your fax dated 16 November. We have the following comments in response:
1. You are incorrect to state that our client’s Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim is over
two months out of time. The claim was stayed for one month from 4 October to 3 November, for
settlement. Given that there was a stay, nothing needed to be filed during this period and the
time does not run during the stay. Ms Gammack has now left this firm but we have asked her to
comment on your assertions. Our position is fully reserved.
2. We are surprised that you have made an application for Default Judgment, given that you
confirmed Mr Castleton was willing to participate in a mediation after standard disclosure. Why
would the standard disclosure stage of proceedings take place if a default judgment was obtained,
triggering a hearing on quantum? Your client’s position is misleading. We will revert to you
separately on the question of disclosure.
3. In any event, you state that the onus is on us to set aside your client’s Judgment in Default but we
have not received any Judgment in Default against our client. If you have received a copy, please
send this to us. The only Judgment in Default we have received is against your client. As no
Judgment in Default has been entered against our client, your client is not entitled to do so given
that our Defence to Counterclaim has been served and filed before any Judgment has been
entered.
4. If the Court does enter Judgment in Default against our client, we are instructed to immediately
apply to set it aside. The Court may set aside a Default Judgment if the Defendant has a real
prospect of successfully defending the claim or there is some other good reason why the
Defendant should be allowed to defend the claim. If the Court accepts at trial that your client has
negligently, carelessly and/or in error failed to account for over £27,000, then it would be
incongruous for the Counterclaim to succeed. The Claim and Counterclaim are intertwined and
there needs to be a full trial of the issues they raise. , We will refer to the fact that Fujitsu Services
examined the computer system and confirmed that the discrepancies were caused by the
difference between the transactions that were recorded on the system and the cash that was
declared and were not caused by the system's software or hardware. In the light of this
examination, we firmly believe that the Post Office claim has much more than a real prospect of
success. Accordingly, if it necessary for us to apply to set aside any Judgment in Default, we
invite you to consent to it now. If an application proves necessary, then we will refer to this fax on
the question of costs.
5. If no Judgment in Default has been entered against our client, then we invite you to immediately
confirm to the Court, copying us in, that you will withdraw your application.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redclff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce 's open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
41A_1090155_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
We do not believe that either parties’ interests are best served by interim applications taking technical
points on procedure that will ultimately do little other than to increase the costs and entrench positions.
We do believe that the best outcome would be for the claim to be stayed to allow a mediation to take
place and will seek a stay at the next directions hearing.
Please let us have your response by return.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
www. bondpearce.com P22
1A_1090155_1
16/11 ‘05 09:54 FAX;
B ROWECOHEN
QUAY HOUSE, QUAY STREET, MANCHESTER, M3 SJE (OX 14352 MCR-1)
Difect dial telephone:
Diract diai fax ::
e-mail:
From: Mark Turner
POL00083351
POL00083351
oar
ROWE COHEN
SOLICITORS
Pages:
Date: 16/11/05
iRet The Post QfficerLee Castleton ce:
I
OG Urgent O For Review O Please Comment (Please Reply OC Please Recycle
wo
uv
Xx
P.G1
POL00083351
POL00083351
16/11 05 09:55 FAX ¢ ROWECOHEN Booz
Date: 16,November 2005
Your ref: SID3/FAC1/348035.134 I
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for:
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
ROWE COHEN
SOLICITORS
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
“PLYMOUTH
I
By DX and Fax
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your letter of 15 November.
Your client’s Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim is over two months out of time. It should be no
surprise to you that judgment in default has been entered against your client. We indicated to your Denise
Gammack during a telephone conversation on 15 September that we had applied for judgment in default given
the failure to file a Defence to Counterclaim within the mandated period.
Ms Gammack indicated that she had been out of the office at the relevant time and had understood that one of
her colleagues had attended to filing it with the court. Despite this apparent “oversight”, you have made no
attempt until now to either serve a Defence and Counterclaim on us or to apply to the court for relief from
sanction and a retrospective extension of time to do so. This is consistent with the general approach that your
client appears to have taken to this litigation as a whole.
The onus is very firmly on your client to apply to the court for relief from sanction and to set aside our client’s
judgment in default. It will not come as any surprise to you that any such application at the case management
conference listed for 6 December will be vigorously opposed. Your client’s own inaction and failure to make
a prompt application for relief from sanction should now preclude the court from exercising any discretion in
its favour. \
{
‘We have made our position regarding mediation abundantly clear in our letter of 8 November. The ball is in
your court,
Yours faithfully
ROWE COHEN I
Cophin + JM Dwele A Fey «A Sacks « ATayor
MC Woodall « RY. Spostan «5.Raam «A.Curven «Rj. Myer « H. bums * SP Suman Amoco LE Seeing + AD, Ouars = H,Motey © RSamman Ceneulsant 47. Herweh
They
Also x London { cssannrannencasrUeTen slog ETT po reance
16-NOU-2885 93:53 95% P82
POL00083351
POL00083351
y
15 November 2005 Bond Pearce Lp
allard House
By Fax 0161 834 7382 & DX West Hoe Road
Rowe Cohen
Our ref:
SID3/HR1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Post Office Limited v Mr L Castleton
Please find enclosed by way of service our client’s Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim.
We confirm we have today filed the same with the Court.
We regret that negotiations appear to have come to a halt and would suggest that we now proceed to
mediation without any further unnecessary delay.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Labllty Partnership. Registered In England and Wales number OC311430,
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Reddliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
AilGt of members of Sond Pesrce is open for inspection at the registered office, Regulated by the Law Sacety. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1089504_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
tei: {~
Her Majestys Court Service
Judgments and Orders
Room No E15
_Royal Courts of Justice
Our ref:
S3D3/LIP1/348035. 134
Your ref:
Dear Sir/Madam
HQO5X02706
Post Office Limited v Mr Lee Castleton
We act for the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant in the above matter.
Please find enclosed our client's Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim for filing.
We confirm that we have today served the same on the Defendant.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcif Street Eristol 881 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Alllst of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1089495_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Helen Rumford Location: N/A Date: 15 November 2005
Start time: Units:
ATTENDING (OUT) the Post Office - trying to speak to Cheryl (who had gone home) or
Jennifer (who was in a meeting until 5pm). Asking to speak to Mandy Talbot.
Speaking to Mandy and explaining that the facts needed to go in. Mandy saying she had not
had chance to read my email or attachment but would do so whilst I was on the telephone.
Mandy saying yes to amend para 1 because the errors occurred during his employment.
Mandy saying that she could not help me regarding the £1256.88 and whether this had been
repaid but she would chase Cheryl in the morning as only those in Chesterfield would know
this but to leave it as no admissions so far. She said we may not ever be able to find this
out as the paperwork had been sent to the auditors and she may not have this back.
Mandy saying that we were authorised to sign on their behalf and requesting that we did so
and HR saying she would send it all off now.
Units
HR1
1A_1089575_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Dat 14 November 2005
You, ef: SJD3/FAC1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
Solicitors.
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We enclose a copy of a letter that we have sent to the court, the contents of which will speak for themselves.
We also enclose a copy of our letter of 4 November to which we refer in that letter.
Yours faithfully
M2 2) © Tel +
Website
vich « LN. Lewis © ML Hymanson © GR Small © A. Dennison © BLT: Coghlan » }N. Divek A Farley » A. Sacks « A.Taylor
MLC. Woodall = Rj. Sproston # S.Room * A Curwen « Rj. Myer # H. Burns « SPSutcon Associates: LF Swering © A.D. Owens * M.Molloy = P Sampson Consultant: 9.7. Horwich
This em is gare by Seciey
=
G\MARKT\ABBEVICASTLETONI41105 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
Also at London {NVESTOR IN PROPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Dai 14 November 2005
Our MDT.113969
Please ask for:
Direct dial:
Masters’ Support Unit
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Dear Sir/Madam
Post Office Limited y Castleton
Claim number HQ 05 X02706
We act for the Defendant in this matter.
We refer to the Judgment for Claimant dated 9 November. We assume that this has been generated as a result
of our letter of 4 November 2005 and that it in fact relates to the Defendant’s application for judgment in
default of service of a Defence to the Counterclaim.
For the complete avoidance of doubt, would you please confirm that this is the case.
We have copied this letter to Bond Pearce, the solicitors for the Claimant, for reference.
Yours faithfully
ROWE COHEN
ce Bond Pearce — Solicitors for the Claimant
Quay House ¢ Quay Street « Manchester PM
+ Email ia
Horwich © TN Lawis # PL. Hymanson © GP. Small + A. Dennison + B:T. Coghlan « 1¥. Dwek « A Farley « A. Sacks » ATaylor
Room ® A. Curwen # Rj. Myer + H. Burns » SR Sutton Associates: LF Swerling * AD. Owens + M.Motioy » PSampson Consultant: MT. Horwich
Partners: SE Cohen © 1, Ro
MC. Woodall + Rj. Sproston «
This fren is eau by the Love Soriey
Ss,
GAMARKTUBBEYICASTLETON\141 105 LETTER TO COURT
Also at London TNVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Da‘ 4 November 2005
MDT.113969
Ow
Please ask for:
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Masters’ Support Unit
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Dear Sir/Madam
Post Office Limited v Castleton
Claim number HQ 05 X02706
We refer to our letter of 10 October regarding judgment in default in relation to the Defendant’s counterclaim.
A copy is enclosed for ease of reference, together with the reply received from the Judgments and Orders
section.
The stay of proceedings imposed pursuant to the Order made by Master Fontaine dated 4 October has now
expired. Settlement terms have not been reached.
In the circumstances, would you please now process our client’s request for judgment in default (with
damages to be assessed) which was lodged with Scarborough County Court prior to the transfer to Central
Office but which has not apparently yet been actioned. A further copy of the Request for Judgment originally
submitted is now enclosed.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
ROWE COHEN
Enc
M2 3)E « Tel
= Websit
This fr eigulowed By the Lowe Saxe So
G\MARKTABBEY\CASTLETON31105
INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
is © MV. Hymanson + GP. Small * A. Dennison » BT: Coghlan « JV.Dwek » A. Farley + A Sacks « A Taylor
J Sproston © S.Room + A Curwen + Rj. Myer # H. Burs © SSucon Ascaciates: LF Swerting + A.D. Owens + M. Molloy « P Sampson Consultant: PLT. Horwich
ER TO COURT
Also at London
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 2
Helen Rumford
From: Helen Rumford
Sent: 15 November 2005 12:54
To: ‘cheryl.woodwart
Ce: ‘mandy talbot
Subject: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Attachments: DOC_1089352.DOC
Dear Cheryl,
lam contacting you urgently because we have today received notice that Rowe Cohen, the
Defendant's solicitors, have applied for Judgement to be entered against you because you have
failed to file a Reply to their Defence and Defence to their Counter Claim.
Further to the issuing of proceedings the Defendant filed a Defence and Counterclaim to which
we had until the 5 September 2005 to enter a Reply to the Defence and a Defence to the
Counterclaim. Unfortunately due to the parties attempting to negotiate settlement and the
Court ordering a stay in proceedings this deadline was overlooked by us.
Rowe Cohen then applied for Judgement against you, without our knowledge, on the basis that
we had not filed a Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim. The Court then mistakenly
awarded Judgement for the Claimant on the basis that no Defence was filed by the Defendant.
Rowe Cohen had of course filed their Defence and wrote to the Court yesterday highlighting the
error and we expect the Court to make the correction today.
I therefore now attach the draft Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim for your
approval. This must be sent to the Court today to try to prevent the Judgement being entered
against you. Of course should Judgement be entered against you we would then apply to set
the Judgement aside.
Please telephone me on receipt of this email to confirm your approval of the Reply and Defence
to the Counterclaim or alternatively to detail any amendments you wish to make.
In particular please confirm whether Mr Castleton was suspended on 23 March 2004 because it
is on this basis that we have admitted paragraph 1 of the Defendant's Defence. If Mr Castleton
left on 23 March we can not see how he could be responsible for losses that occurred on 24
March. However please inform me if my understanding is incorrect.
Please also confirm whether the £1256.88 loss was repaid by Mrs Constable in January 2005. If
so we will need to amend paragraph 2 to admit that this loss has now been repaid.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible today. If I do not hear from you by
3pm today I will assume your approval and proceed to fax the Reply and Defence
to Counterclaim to the Court.!
Yours sincerely
Helen Rumford
Trainee Solicitor
for and_on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
Main office phon
15/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. HQ05X02706
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant/Part 20 Defendant
-and-
LEE CASTLETON
Defendant/Part 20 Claimant
REPLY TO DEFENCE AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM r
26, TEMODEE eG Rey Ted Wa 0G ig clerreel I
Reply earthen EM reece % .
he SNE AO 2 a ON etn BE :
SSE. ES dencee! as
2 7
1. Paragraph 2 of the Defence is admitted in that the Defendant was suspended on 23 March 2004*andis
net-responsible for the losses sustained after this dates = EXOTS dated 2G Het Zoo
Anes e. _ AOE, THe Aeccontroy Qe od end Te VE
Ie u Ue Mech « pach, 20! «
ene S63 Baty esternen TS Moms erie 2s ae ETT
a ©“3°2. No admissions are made as to paragraph 3 of the Defence however, the Claimant confirms that the
owe Defendant was responsible for and obliged to make good without delay, all losses caused through his
Owe
¢ \we ws own negligence, carelessness or error and losses of any kind caused by his assistants. (See Section 12
yer wd” of the Standard Sub-Postmaster’s Contract).
yes CL
La eho?
3. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Defence are denied. Fujitsu Services have looked at the system and have
g confirmed that the discrepancies were caused by the difference between the transactions that were
recorded on the system and the cash that was declared and were not caused by the system’s software
or hardware.
4. Except where the Defendant has made admissions and except as appears in this Statement of Case,
the Claimant joins issue with the Defendant upon his Defence.
Defence to Counterclaim
5. The Claimant repeats paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.
6, The Claimant does not admit the loss and damage alleged in paragraph 10 of the Counterclaim or any
loss and damage at all.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
* The Claimant believes the facts stated in this Statement of Case are true.
* Iam authorised by the Claimant to sign this Statement.
Full name:
Signed
Name of Claimant's solicitors: Bond Pearce LLP
Position of office held:
(if signing on behalf of firm or company)
« delete as appropriate
1A_1089352_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
aimant’s or Claimant’s solicitors’ address to which documents or payments should be sent, if different
from overleaf, including (if appropriate) details of DX, fax or email:
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Ref: JMS1/348035.134
1A 1089352_1
1A_1089352_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Claim No. HQ05X02706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant/Part 20 Defendant
-and-
LEE CASTLETON
Defendant/Part 20 Defendant
REPLY TO DEFENCE AND DEFENCE TO
COUNTERCLAIM
BOND PEARCE LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Solicitors for the Claimant/Part 20 Defendant
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
“tephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 11 November 2005 14:
To: ‘mandy.talbof™
Subject: The Post Office
Attachments: Ecopy Scan.pdf; Ecopy Scan.pdf
- Lee Castleton
Dear Mandy and Cheryl,
Thanks, Cheryl, for your e-mail of 10 November.
I note that the Post Office is not able to find the documents which it removed from the sub post
office. These documents are crucial to Mr Castleton's Defence and the Court will draw adverse
inferences if we are not able to produce them. This reinforces my view that we should seek an
early settlement.
T attach a letter dated 10 November 2005 from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond Pearce for your
information, together with an article from the November 2005 edition of the Sub-Postmaster
Magazine in which a sub-postmaster in Chelmsford complains of problems with the operation of
the Horizon computer system. Other sub-postmasters' problems are in my view irrelevant to
the issue of whether the Horizon worked for Mr Castleton, unless there is evidence of
widespread problems. Mr Castleton's specific point is that there are widespread problems with
Horizon and accordingly he should not have been dismissed.
Mandy, I look forward to hearing from you in relation to my 9 November letter. If it will be
over the phone, please do not hesitate to contact me on telephone
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
DDI: + H
Main office phon
11/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page l of 1
Stephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 11 November 2005 14:06
To: ‘mandy.talbot..
Subject: The Post Office
Attachments: Ecopy Scan.pdf, Ecopy Scan.pdf
4 ‘cheryl.woodward
- Lee Castleton
Dear Mandy and Cheryl,
Thanks, Cheryl, for your e-mail of 10 November.
I note that the Post Office is not able to find the documents which it removed from the sub post
office. These documents are crucial to Mr Castleton's Defence and the Court will draw adverse
inferences if we are not able to produce them. This reinforces my view that we should seek an
early settlement.
l attach a letter dated 10 November 2005 from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond Pearce for your
information, together with an article from the November 2005 edition of the Sub-Postmaster
Magazine in which a sub-postmaster in Chelmsford complains of problems with the operation of
the Horizon computer system. Other sub-postmasters' problems are in my view irrelevant to
the issue of whether the Horizon worked for Mr Castleton, unless there is evidence of
widespread problems. Mr Castleton's specific point is that there are widespread problems with
Horizon and accordingly he should not have been dismissed.
Mandy, I look forward to hearing from you in relation to my 9 November letter. If it will be
helpful to discuss things over the phone, please do not hesitate to contact me on telephone
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and_on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
DDI: +.
11/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
~ Date: 10 November 2005
Your ref: SJD3/FAC1/348035.134
Our.ref: MDT.113969
Ph ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
ROWE COHEN
SOLICITORS
Bond Pearce
_ Soli
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to our letter of 7 November and enclose a copy of an extract from the November 2005 edition of
Subpostmaster magazine.
You will see the highlighted section is a letter from a sub-postmaster in Chelmsford complaining of acute
problems with the operation of the Horizon computer system, and the complete unwillingness on the part of
both the Post Office and the Horizon Helpline to assist with the problem, or even acknowledge that a problem
exists.
The parallels with our own client’s position are striking. Indeed, our client’s research shows that the situation
in which the subpostmaster in question finds himself is duplicated among a substantial number of other
subpostmasters around the country.
We are instructed that your client has been forced to settle claims brought against other subpostmasters, some
of which involved very substantial payments being made to the subpostmaster, rather than take the matter to
trial. Your client then commonly insists on the insertion of a confidentiality clause into the settlement
agreement to prevent the subpostmaster discussing either the dispute or the terms of settlement.
One entirely reasonable assumption, based on the above, is that your client is only too aware that the Horizon
system does not perform properly but that it cannot and will not publicly acknowledge that fact because to do
so would potentially expose it to a wave of claims from subpostmasters who have been accused of shortfalls
and who have made good the alleged losses. To acknowledge the problem would also most cause acute
embarrassment to your client and, most likely, a public relations disaster.
In short, this is not an isolated incidence of problems with Horizon. This is entirely consistent with our client’s
position since this dispute first arose. Your client flatly refused to countenance that the alleged shortfall could
be the result of anything other than user error (or even outright fraud) on the part of our client or his
employees, despite the fact that it knew very well that there are numerous other cases with similar, if not
identical facts, around the country.
Our client has spoken with Mr Bajaj, the writer of the letter in the enclosed article, and Mr Bajaj has
confirmed that he will be happy to give evidence of the problems he has experienced for use in these
proceedings. Likewise, the subpostmasters at Doncaster and Milson Moor, who have also experienced similar
issues with Horizon and your client’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of a problem, have confirmed that
they will also provide statements.
‘ partinars: SE Caliai 31 Rowe + Dj. Horwich © LN. Lewis © MM. Hymanson « GP Sirall © A.Dennison * BT Coghlan » JV. Dwek © A. Farley # A Sacks © A Taylor
M.C.Woodall + Ry. Sproston « S.Room # A.Curwen » Rj. Myer + H, Burns + SR Sutton Associates: LF Swerling « AD. Owens + M. Malloy * ® Sampson Consultant: MT: Horwich
nat
Also at London G\MARKTABBEY\CASTLETON\I01105 4, SITER TQ HOND REARCE
POL00083351
POL00083351
li. the circumstances, this supports our previously-expressed requirement that your client provide full and
frank disclosure of the problems that it has experienced with the Horizon system, the claims that it has
pursued against other subpostermasters on the basis of alleged shortfalls and the outcome of those claims. We
shall expect your client to comply with its disclosure obligations in this regard as and when these proceedings
move on to service of Lists of Documents.
Receipt is acknowledged for your letter of 9 November. We look forward to hearing from you once you have
taken your client’s instructions in that regard.
G\MARKT\ABBEYICASTLETON)101105 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
POL.00083351
‘SUBPOSTMASTER, November 2005 - 7
Letters to the Editor should be addressed to:
The Editor, Dotwyddetan Post Office, Castle Terrace,
Dolwyddelaa, Gwynedd, L125 ONJ.
i
Afirtours SNE UP TOS% FANTASTIC SAVINGS I SAE UE Toe 12% DISCOUNT
<= DISCOUNT ON, ibrapiscount with F7@HUONS ON WINTER 2005
liaise” SUMMER 2000 ON THOUSANDS OF LAST ——S."'Lisrahoupays EMF AND SUMMER 2006!
: wesiangencrg -MINUTEDEALS! = Sg upn seer enact gale
peccach ‘commie i “callosas 006 0240 or og omto Sf, te Se a
Sain, ne ae = mn
fone,
Paso ca
V11 dilemma
SIR - For several months now customers have received V11
reminders five oF six working days prior to the magic t5th of the
month. Customers being customers assume that they can
immediately visit their local Post Office® and tax the vehicle —
after all, for years now that nice chap behind the counter has
been teling them they can tax their vehicle as soon as they
receive the reminder thus avoiding the busy month end
No one looks forward to buying an MVL; it's a stress
purchase and to be told that youve ‘got to wait ill Saturday’ is
therefore particularly galling having girded one’s loins to face
the annual insurance and MOT checks.
have made numerous representations to the NBSC ~ the
consistent response is “The customer should read the reminder
form’. Not terribly customer friendly, in my view. The fact is that
most customers don't read forms and simply become
aggrieved when you cannot serve them. Not surprisingly, an
aggravated customer is less than fertile ground for sowing the
‘seeds of credit card, car insurance, home phone ete.
‘This really needs to be addressed. In my office this involves,
ental hundreds of customers dung the wook in quoston.
fe should be aiming to delight customers not to deliberately
may hom,
Peter Fishwick
Upton Heath Post Office
er
Is it worth the risk
SIR - “Top up with 3 pay, 10 minutes to reverse it. Who wants
to sell them, is it worth seling them, is it worth the risk?
Hf you make a mistake in selling a Top Up 3 pay voucher,
you only have 10 minutes to reverse it otherwise you have to
bear the loss. Icons to sell these vouchers and reversals are
straightforward but by the time you finish serving a customer
with @ few items, and work out how to do the reversal ifthe 10
ticten haa pasaad, ha Hn cannot hap and the E Top
up 3 Pay company doesn't have a ref
Thad a bad experience tis weeks weighing the risk gaint
the profit we make by seling them is not worth it.The time lit
shoud bo ruseased tp a teaonable tie forthe Tevesal of
these vouchers otherwise we should not sell them.
Mrs NK Seghal
Leamington Post Office
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Problems with Horizon
SIR - Since December 2004 we've had problems with the
functioning of Horizon. it seems that certain transactions are
either not recorded or go missing. On three occasions we had
to pay over £4000, £3,500 and £3,000 respectively
‘When taken up with the Helpline and the people concerned
there was no assistance or explanation - excepting there is no
error notice had been the reply. During the last nine months no
expert from Horizon has come to explain how the daily ending
balance is plus, but at the end of the week goes into a massive
deficit. The Helpline admits that there are a lot of complaints
about the system.
How many other subpostmasters have had the same
problem? Has any other subpostmaster refused to make
I feel that the Post Office® and Horizon have intoniooally
adopted the attitude to shut down a post office rather than
admit that the Horizon system can go wrong, because if they
admit, it could open the floodgates to claims.
VK Baja}
Torquay Road Post Office
Chelmsford
Tell management not subpostmasters
‘SIR - I really must comment on the front page story in the
September issue of “The Subpostmaster, entitled “Growth for
Profit and Share in Success”. Georgina Daly ends the article
with a few “pointers” to help members “deliver the growth in
profit necessary to reach the (POL) target figure”.
Miss Daly makes fine, commonsense sentiments but they
should be addressed to the management of Post Office Lid, not
to subpostmasters.
‘@ We KNOW what our customers want from our business —
but Post Office Ltd won't listen to us!
‘© How can we keep competitors at bay when Post Office Lid
tie ourhands?
'@ We KNOW how to do things better and cheaper but Post,
Office Lid won't consider our ideas.
‘@ Making the business more commercial, more flexible and
better abie to compete in the future is notin our control we are
in the lap of the gods of Post Office Ltd management. Speak to
Se
iss Daly, while we concentrate on ensuring that our
Prato busnassee are suvoessh
Jane Full
Kenwyn St Post
Truro
Office
Editor : I rather fancy that Miss Daly has done just that
the pages of The SubPostmaster which is widely read
in Post Offce® circles.
Branch Trading
SIR - I have just received and “rermmed” in my first stock under
new Branch Trading system. I believe that this will lead to more
‘errors instead of less. The reason being that most items are put
‘on the Horizon stock system by volume and not value.
This makes it impossible at a glance to see if you have made
‘a mistake because there Is no total value to compare. This
means it should have been checked by someone else and,
‘guess what, we had forgotten to put one item on because it is,
‘Quite difficult to check things on screen.
'helieve this simple check should be re-incorporated in the
software.
‘Another concem is the lack of Barclays cheque deposit
envelopes. The Barclays customers tell us that it is difficult to
convince the bank's Helpline to give them sulficient envelopes;
Lloyds have a better system and sends the customer 10
‘envelopes.
Federation supports subpostmasters
SIR - This morning I received a letter from our General
Secretary regarding the Post Office® Trading Restrictions
Agreement. rhad previously received a letter from a fellow
subposimastar who I have always considered progressive and
‘supportive of our cause.
‘Sadly, in this case my fellow subpostmaster seems to be off
net! I will therefore not be subscribing to his well-intended
cause,
I give my full support to our General Secretary and our
Federation! It is my considered opinion that to follow any other
course to the one explained by the General Secretary would be
counter productive. It would weaken the future of our
Federation and our own security. The main object of our
Socemerea™
Federation is to maintain the sub post office network and
‘support subpostmasters.
lin my view there is no room for two organisations trying to
‘make representations on our behalt. It we are not careful, our
negotiating strength will be diluted. it seems that the other
‘organisation is out to promote the well being of conveni
stores with an appendage of @ sub post office. I am a
subpostmaster (and have been so for over 50 years); my
private business is an appendage to my post office.
We do trade under the Post Oifice® flag and work under
similar rues to a high street franchise, although we are not a
franchise. We all know from the time we are appointed what we
can do and what we can't do. However, this does not stop our
Federation trom pressing for improvements in our terms,
IF understand the position corecty if you run a Pizza Hut,
you buy stock from Pizza Hut, in the same way as we receive
ur goa and serces trough Post Oc Lid. You dont sal
;pagheti House products in your Pizza Hul, although they may
Bento prota you its pub ta os romesy, Yor mak
‘get your stock from the brewery — you cannot go to @ cash and
‘aarry although you could obtain your stock there at less cost
than from the brewery. It is accepted practice; if you trade
under aflag you accept ihe rues ofthe house.
However, one thing that does bug me is hearsay. it you have
a shop within a shop you can buy foreign currency
independently and sell it more profitably than supplied by the
Post Office®. As long as you don't sell it over the Post Ofice®
‘counter. Is this correct?
John Margeson OBE TD JP
‘Queensferry Post Office
Seller beware
SIR - Sadly, your article about the pitfalls of appointing a
‘commercial estate agent came too late for us, but just how do
you know i an agent is ‘reputable"?
We signed a contract with an agent and assumed it was
rnermal practice when they charged us £4504VAT up front,
‘Since then we have heard litle except vague assurances of
client interest and the usual estate agent stuff about there
being a huge potential market for properties like ours. On one
Session they wanted fo put up a For Sale’ notes ouside the
Mike Williams
Dummer Post Office
Hampshire
AS SEEN AT ’SUBPOSTMASTER 2005:
CASH COUNTING,
FORGERY DETECTION
& POSTAL SCALES
‘Your recommended NFSP Business Partner offers
OVER 50% SAVINGS on equipment including:
4NOTE and COIN Counting
= With optional forgery
I detection, or count your
til accurately in under 3 pe
minutes!!!
BANK NOTE VALIDATORS to detect forged
notes ~ identifies and counts sterling £, >
euros and US dollars $on the same unit. (¥p.
High quality, fast and accurate!!! <3
“SA. 4PRICE CALCULATING POSTAL
‘SCALES ~ to weigh and display the
price of letters / parcels. 6 models up
<> 0.30 KG.
Plus; We offer opportunities to sell our
product range to local businesses in your area - with
FANTASTIC CASH REWARDS TO BE MADE...
For further information please contact...
‘TOTAL POSTWEIGH INTERNATIONAL} LD
‘TEL 01434381182 FAX 01434382035
SECURITY
Competitively priced counters & screens I
available at very short lead times, all
installations completed within a day,
for full information cal
orate com J FREEPHONE 0500 820 414 I lf
Nee
POL00083351
POL00083351
te, _Stephen Dilley
From cheryl.woodwar¢___
Sent: 10 November 2005 0
To: Stephen Dilley.
Ce:
Subject:
Attachments: C.htm; Ecopy Scan.pdf
C.htm (3 KB) Ecopy Scan.pdf
(408 KB)
Hi Stephen
In regards to your letter.
The paperwork which was removed from Marine Drive Po unfortunately cannot be found.
Cheryl.
"Stephen Dilley”
To: <mandy.talbot@”
cc: <cheryl. WOOdWard Gn nnmseseseerneerererernened
Subject: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
09/11/2005 16:15
Please see attached.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
GRO
www ‘vorrapearce:com-<iccp ://www.bondpearce.com/>
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: Bristol Bridge House, 138-141 Redcliff Street, Bristol,
BS1 6B).
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.
(See attached file: C.htm)
POL00083351
POL00083351
(Sez attached file: Ecopy Scan.pdf)
Yo FESS SEIS SE SEA EI I OSS SIOESI SKIS SEE ISIE OIISIISICISIORACI RK ACISI AACA AACA EA
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.
IEE OS SIGS OI ISIERIOR SERIE IESE SECORI ISERIES SITIO OKI OI ORI ISK ASEACARKAEA AEA AA
POL00083351
POL00083351
9 November 2005 - Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
By Email mandy.talbot_ GRO “I & Post West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Ms Mandy Talbot
Legal Services
Royal Mail
Impact House
2 Edridge Road
Croydon ‘SJD3/LAF1/348035.134
CRO 1P3 Your ref:
Dear Mandy
Post Office Limited v. Lee Castleton
IT refer to our telephone conversation on 3 November 2005.
As requested, I enclose a copy of the papers we have received from the Post Office in Chesterfield, for
your information. This includes an email from Julie Walsh at Fujitsu to Richard Benton dated 5 May 2004,
that states:
“There is no evidence whatsoever of any system problem”
If Fujitsu could prepare a formal report explaining precisely what steps they took to examine the system
and their conclusion, then I could disclose this to Mr Castleton’s solicitors to strengthen the Post Office's
case. Would you or Cheryl be able to obtain this from Fujitsu or would you be happy for me to approach
Fujitsu directly for this?
Mr Castleton’s solicitors state that he is willing mediate, provided that beforehand the Post Office
discloses;
4. The documents Mr Castleton has been seeking since March. As préviously discussed, it would be
useful if the Post Office could supply the documents set out in my 18 October email. I am copying this
letter to Chery! Woodward and would ask her to let me know if she has been able to find them.
2. All other documents concerning problems with the operation of the Horizon system, because Mr
Castleton believes that a number of other sub postmasters are in dispute with the Post Office arising
from problems with the operation of Horizon.
Is the Post Office experiencing significant problems with Horizon? I anticipate that it would be a very
tall order to ask the Post Office to record and collate all the problems reported with Horizon throughout
England and Wales. The disclosure rules state that a party has to disclose only the documents on
which they rely and which adversely affect their own or the other party’s case, or support the other
party’s case. The Post Office has to make a reasonable search for those documents, but when
deciding what it is “reasonable” to search for, the Court will consider the number of documents
involved, the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the ease and expense of retrieval of any
particular document and the significance of any document which is likely to be located during the
search.
If you agree that it would be unreasonable for the Post Office to disclose those sorts of documents,
please could you give me an idea of the number of sub post offices in England and Wales which you
would have to contact and how difficult and expensive it would be to obtain those documents. I will
then be able to explain to Mr Castleton’s solicitors why we do not believe that it is reasonable to
conduct a nationwide search.
In my view, unless there is evidence to suggest that many sub post masters have problems with
Horizon, then other sub postmaster’s problems are probably irrelevant to the issue of whether the
Horizon system worked for Mr Castleton. Do you agree?
Bond Pearce LLP, » Limited Uabllty Partnership. Regltered in England and Wales number C3114
30.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 136-141 Redciiff Street Bristol B51 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Alls of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Socket. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1087046..1
POL00083351
POL00083351
The Court will probably list a case management conference to take place now the stay has expired.
Hopefully we can persuade Mr Castleton’s solicitors to voluntarily agree to extend the stay so that we can
adjourn the case management conference and save the costs of attending. I have sent Mr Castleton’s
solicitors a holding response, but look forward to hearing from you in relation to the above so that I can
reply to them substantively.
Kind regards,
for and on behalf of Bond Pegrce LLP
Enclosures by post only
www.bondpearce.com = P2/2
1010870461
POL00083351
POL00083351
Tom 8 November 2005
Your ref: SJD3/FAC1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for:
Direct dit
Direct fax :
E-mail:
rN
RECENED
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
By DX and Fax
Without prejudice except as to costs
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your letter of 7 November.
It is somewhat perplexing that, after we first raised the issue of ADR with you during the writer’s
conversation with your Miss Gammack on 15 September, and the court having subsequently ordered a one
month stay of its own motion, your client only now proposes mediation following the expiry of that stay. Your
client seems to have little appetite for these proceedings and has to date shown very little inclination to drive
them on.
Our client is prepared to participate in mediation, subject to two qualifications. Firstly, our long-standing
request for disclosure of documentation must be addressed before he is willing to contemplate mediation. The
report of Bentley Jennison that we made voluntarily available to you over a month ago demonstrates the
fundamental relevance of the documents which we have been seeking from your client since as long ago as
March this year. There can, in our view, be no objection to their disclosure.
Secondly, documentation relating to the problems experienced with the Horizon system by other sub-
postmasters is also central to our client’s claim. Our client is aware of a number of other sub-postmasters
involved in disputes with your client arising from problems with the operation of Horizon leading to alleged
shortfalls. We will therefore require disclosure of all such documentation as a precondition of our client’s
participation.
These are not unreasonable conditions. We do not believe that mediation can meaningfully take place in the
absence of disclosure of these documents. To that end, we would propose that your client either give voluntary
disclosure in advance of any court order of the documents which we have requested on numerous occasions in
the past or that further discussion of ADR be deferred until such time as standard disclosure (and any
subsequent application for specific disclosure which our client might want to pursue) has been completed.
We look forward to hearing from you further in this regard.
0
Pannen “ ,
GRO I.
Yours faithfully
# MV.Hymanson * GE Small # A Dennison # BT. Coghlan # JV.Dwek » A. Farley # A. Sacks # A.Taylor
M.C. Woodall» Ry, Sproston + S. Room » A. Curwen » Rj. Myer » H Burns « SP.Sutton Associates: LF Swering + A.D, Owens « M. Molloy + Sampson Consultant: MT. Horwich
‘This fonts reguloted by the Low Socexy
s
Also at London OAMARKTIABBEVICASTLETONGS1 105 LETTERTO BOND PEARCE
INVESTORIN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
External
Rayreerunrwerrne nnn
ce:
05/05/2004 12:32 Subject:
Richard,
I have had a chat with Anne, she used the message store viewing to
investigate this. If you want copies of extracts for the particular
incorrect declarations please submit an ad hoc request requesting this
information. Hope this helps, see below:
NO TRANSACTION DATE AND TIME WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS ACTION USING CURRENT
DATE
AND TIME By Anne Chambers at 26-feb-2004 15:16:00 Category 94 - Advice and
guidance given I have checked various things on the system. All the
internal
reconciliation checks are ok. Cheques are being handled correctly (except
for 10th Feb when the clerk forgot to cut off the report - but this didn't
cause a discrepancy). Cash declarations look ok, they usually use drawer id
11. Occasionally they have used a different drawer Id, this can lead to
amounts apparently doubling on the cash flow report, and should be avoided.
But again it will not cause a discrepancy. Checking the cash transactions
on
the system against the declarations shows that they are not working
particularly accurately (i.e. at the end of the day the cash they declare
in :
the drawer is tens, hundreds or thousands of pounds astray from what has
been recorded on the system). It is possible that they are not accurately
recording all transactions on the system. There Is no evidence whatsoever
of
any system problem. I've mentioned this outlet to Julie Welsh (Customer
Services) who will try to get POL to follow it up, but in the meantime
please tell the PM that we have Investigated and the discrepancies are
caused by the difference between the transactions they have recorded on the
system and the cash they have declared, and are not being caused by the
software or hardware.
Julie Welsh
Service Delivery Manager HSH
Business Service Management, Post Office Account
FUJITSU SERVICES
Lovelace Road
Bracknell
Berks
RG12 8SN
Tel:
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2... 01/02/2005
wap ver even
POL00083351
POL00083351
9 November 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
$JD3/SIR2/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Without prejudice save as to costs
Post Office Limited v Mr L Castleton
Thank you for your letter dated 8 November.
We are seeking instructions on the contents of your letter and will revert to you once we have them.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redclff Street Bristol 8S1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Alist of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
4A_1087101_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Dat~ 8 November 2005
You. .ef: SJD3/FAC1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial: '
Direct fax : ;
E-mail: I
Without prejudice except as to costs
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton —- Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your letter of 7 November.
It is somewhat perplexing that, after we first raised the issue of ADR with you during the writer’s
conversation with your Miss Gammack on 15 September, and the court having subsequently ordered a one
month stay of its own motion, your client only now proposes mediation following the expiry of that stay. Your
client seems to have little appetite for these proceedings and has to date shown very little inclination to drive
them on.
Our client is prepared to participate in mediation, subject to two qualifications. Firstly, our long-standing
request for disclosure of documentation must be addressed before he is willing to contemplate mediation. The
report of Bentley Jennison that we made voluntarily available to you over a month ago demonstrates the
fundamental relevance of the documents which we have been seeking from your client since as long ago as
March this year, There can, in our view, be no objection to their disclosure.
Secondly, documentation relating to the problems experienced with the Horizon system by other sub-
postmasters is also central to our client’s claim. Our client is aware of a number of other sub-postmasters
involved in disputes with your client arising from problems with the operation of Horizon leading to alleged
shortfalls. We will therefore require disclosure of all such documentation as a precondition of our client’s
participation.
These are not unreasonable conditions. We do not believe that mediation can meaningfully take place in the
absence of disclosure of these documents. To that end, we would propose that your client either give voluntary
disclosure in advance of any court order of the documents which we have requested on numerous occasions in
the past or that further discussion of ADR be deferred until such time as standard disclosure (and any
subsequent application for specific disclosure which our client might want to pursue) has been completed.
We look forward to hearing from you further in this regard.
Yours faithfully
M.C.Weodall « Rj. Sproston # §.Room « A Curwon + Rj. Myer + H.Burns » SP Sutton Associates: LE Swerling * A.D, Owens * M. Molloy « ®Sempson Consultant: M.T. Horwich
Phi fr by the Law Society
Ss.
‘GSMARKTUBBEYICASTLETON8! 105 LETTER-TO BOND PEARCE
‘Also at London INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
08/11 ‘OS 15:35 FAX f ROWECOHEN . . Boor
i
IQUAY HOUSE, QUAY STREET, MANCHESTER. M3 3JE (OX 14352 MCR) :
{Direct dial telephone;
‘Direct dial fax ::
e-mail
ROWE COREN
SOLICITORS
, ‘To: Stephen Dilley - Bond Pearce Frome Mark Tumer
Pages:
; Date: 08/11/05
Re: The eee Officell.ee Castleton ce:
O Urgent [1 ForReview OPiease Comment OFPlease Reply CO Please Recycie
08-NOV-2005 16:35 !
i 94% P.00L
POL00083351
POL00083351
08/11 "05 13:35 Fax! ROWECOHEN oo2
I I
Date: I 8 November 2005 ‘ g I
Your refi SID3/FACI/348035,134 I
ref MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Turns
By DX and Fax
4d : ‘Without prejudice except as to costs
Dear Sirs
Or client: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your letter of 7 November.
It is somewhat perplexing that, after we first raised the issue of ADR with you during the writer's
conversation with your Miss Gammack on 15 September, and the court having subsequently ordered a one
month stay of its own motion, your client only now proposes mediation following the expiry of that stay. Your
client seems to have little appetite for these proceedings and has to date shown very little inclination to drive
them on.
Our cliént is prepared to participate ix mediation, subject to two qualifications. Firstly, our long-standing
request for disclosure of documentation must be addressed before he is willing to contemplate mediation. The
report of Bestley Jennison that we made voluntarily available to you over 2 month ago demonstrates the
fundamental relevance of the documents which we have been seeking from your client since as long ago as
March this year. There can, in our view, be no objection to their disclosure.
Secondly, documentation relating to the problems experienced with the Horizon system by other sub-
postmasters is also central to our client’s claim. Our client is aware of a number of other sub-postmasters
involved in disputes with your client arising from problems with the operation of Harizon leading to alleged
shortfalls. We will therefore require disclosure of all such documentation 2s a precondition of our client's
participation.
These are not unreasonable conditions. We do not believe that mediation can meaningfully take place in the
absence of disclosure of these documents. To that end, we would propose that your client either give voluntary
disclosure in advance of any court order of the documents which we have requested on numerous occasions in
the past or that further discussion of ADR be deferred until such time as standard disclosure (and any
subsequent application for specific disclosure which our client might want to pursue) has been completed.
We look forward to hearing from you further in this regard.
fe]
Lowe + BERR T INTs + MY Hymanacn + Gi Smal «A. Dennean ¥ BT. Caghlsn » IS Dk « A Fakey © A Sasha # ATipor
MC Wood o Rl Soren + $.Roor + A Earwen © Ri: Myer + H.Burmt « SP Sonam Aamncaten LF Searing « AS\ Omens» M. Meloy» PSmpeon Conculcans HT Harwch
‘Di for regaled by the Low Society t
Also a& Loniton
O8-NOV-2005 15:35
GOCARATIANNEVCASTLETONOEL 05 SOND PEARCE
TRIVERTOR IK PEOPLE
94% P.002
POL00083351
POL00083351
FAILS,
7 November 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
EL GRO
Rowe Cohen
Dire
Our ref:
‘$JD3/FAC1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Without Prejudice Save as to Costs
Post Office Limited v Mr L Castleton
Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2005. We have since spoken with your Mr Turner and have
taken instructions from our client.
We are instructed to put forward an offer of mediation for the parties to attend to see whether this claim
may be settled. Please take your client's instructions and revert to us. In the event that mediation is
declined, we reserve the right to refer to this letter on the question of costs and refer you to the cases of
Dunnett v Railtrack [2002] and Burchell v Bullard.
In the event that your client is willing to attend the mediation, we will let you have our proposals for the
venue, mediator and suggested dates.
We await hearing from you
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, 2 Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Budge Muse 138-141 Redclff Street Srstol BSl 68). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Alllst of members of Bond Pearce 1s open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
4A_1085723_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
7 November 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
$3D3/FAC1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Without Prejudice Save as to Costs
Post Office Limited v Mr L Castleton
Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2005. We have since spoken with your Mr Turner and have
taken instructions from our client.
We are instructed to put forward an offer of mediation to see whether this claim may be settled. Please
take your client’s instructions and revert to us. We refer you to the cases of Dunnett v Railtrack [2002]
and Burchell v Bullard [2005]. In the event that Mr Castleton declines mediation, we will at the
appropriate time refer the Court to this letter on the question of costs.
In the event that Mr Castleton is willing to attend a mediation, we will provide you with our proposals for
the venue, mediator and suggested dates.
We await hearing from you
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redeilff Street Bristol BSI 653. VAT number G8143 0282 07.
A ist of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office, Regulated by the Law Soclety www.bondpearce.com
1410857231
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 2
Stephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 07 November 2005 10:01
To: Stephen Lister
Subject: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Dear Stephen,
As you are the relationship partner for the Royal Mail, I thought it would be helpful to update
you in relation to a case I am dealing with for them in case Mandy Talbot mentions it. I
recently inherited this case from Denise Gammack when she left the firm, who in turn inherited
it from Laura Peto in CMS.
Mr Castleton ("Mr C") was a subpostmaster from July 2003 to March 2004. The Post Office
a claim against him for approximately £27,115.83 plus interest and costs in respect of net
losses. The real issue is whether there has been any real shortfall, or whether the shortfall has
really been generated by computer error. Mr Castleton believes the post offices' weekly
snapshots are inaccurate. Mr C has a wrongful termination claim for up to £250,000 but those
losses have not yet been particularised.
The claim has been issued, a defence and counterclaim served, and the case was stayed for
settlement. Mr C has obtained 2 experts' reports which conclude that the
P.O's Horizon computer system, despite the suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the
entry on the daily snapshot and that Mr Castleton's Defence, “appears to hold potential merit
based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed.
I have asked the P.O to produce some more documents to try to strengthen their claim, but
they are struggling to do so. Given the nature of Mr Castleton's Defence, I suspect that the
Court will draw adverse inferences against the Post Office if it is unable to produce relevant
documents that could either help or hinder its case.
My view is either that we should obtain the documents to prove the claim is true, or take an
early view that it is unlikely to succeed and seek an early settlement (which may even ona
worst case scenario involve making a payment to Mr Castleton).
We take instructions from Cheryl Woodward, Agents Debt Team, Chesterfield but Mandy Talbot
is copied in on emails. I spoke to Mandy last week to take instructions and her first question
was why Bond Pearce had issued a claim when liability was unclear. I informed Mandy that my
colleagues had expressed concern to Cheryl about issuing.
(There is an attendance note of a telecon between Laura and Richard Benton (Service
Management Section) on file dated 20 April "LRB expressing concern that she would only want
to issue if she was entirely satisfied there were no holes in the evidence which would make the
claim fail" and letter from Laura to Cheryl dated 10 May stating "...although you have instructed
me to issue proceedings, I am reluctant to do so with the knowledge that some vital evidence
may be missing. In particular, some balance snapshots and documents for Week 51 and 52 are
missing together with an audit trail. The debtor's solicitors claim that these documents are
pivotal..." and email from Laura to Cheryl of 24 May "...it will damage the claim if we are unable
to provide evidence pivotal to the claim." Laura was then told to issue a claim without this
information.
Mandy's next comment was that Cheryl may not have had authority to tell Laura to issue a
claim but I was able to tell Mandy that Cheryl had referred this question to her Managers before
instruction Laura to proceed.
In any event, Mandy has instructed me to put forward an offer of mediation to try to settle the
07/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 2
claim. In the meantime, she will try to obtain more info to support the P.O's claim.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
www. bonapedrce:com™
07/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
Stephen Dilley
From: Nicola McSherry
Sent: 03 November 2005 11:02
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Message
Please call Mandy Talbot of Royal Mail Services re Lee Castleton o:
have finished your meeting.
Thanks
Nicola McSherry
Secretary
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
03/11/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
From: jennifer.robsort GRO
Sent: 02 November 2UU05 14:48
To: Stephen Dilley
Ce: cheryl.woodward}
Subject: ARQ Ref 0506/4057"
Stephen
please see the attached from Fujitsu.
Nicholas
I now need you to confirm to Bond Pearce that you are happy for the legal case to proceed please.
Regards .
Jennifer
Debt Recovery Section manager
Post Office Ltd
Finance
1st Floor West , No 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S49 1PF
: Mobex: Mobile:
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee (s) 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 is error please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system.
External Email: jennifer.robso!
noe Forwarded by Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE on 02/11/2005 14:14 -----
Graham C Ward
To: Jennifer on mommy
02/11/2005 13:53 Robson/e/postorFiceé GRO I
cc: Neerererereenrnens =I
Subject: ARQ Ref 0506/405
as per previous e mail
Regards
Graham
Pinder Brian
02/11/2005 12:20 : Subject: ARQ Ref 0506/405
Graham
I have sent you the CD containing the helpdesk calls (1 Jan 04 - 31 Mar 04) re 213337 Marine Drive as requested.
I was not able to identify any calls referring to system faults.
Regds
Brian Pinder
Security Manager
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
From: cheryl.woodward,
Sent: 01 November 2005 0:
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Hi Stephen
I have passed the e-mail on to my Managers and await their reply.
Cheryl.
SEIS ISIC OS IOS I ISS I TOSIOCI OE IOKICKI IS IORI OBISI IEE IDIIOS AISI SKAAEA IRA ADK AAA AK
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.
JESS OSS IO OGG IOC CESS AI ISO SSI AI ICIS AI IGA AI I AA ATA A AAA
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
From: cheryl. woodward.
Sent: 01 November 2005 08:21
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Hi Stephen
I have passed the e-mail on to my Managers and await their reply.
Cheryl.
FOR ICICI SI SIE IS SI AFCA IIIA ISOS SIE IRIS IEEE SES IGE IEE SI ISI ISI IRIGK KAGE GE
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.
JESS SIC IS IESE EE IECISRIOS TEESE OCI OROISCI BEI IOI IDK AREI ISI ARATE AAAI AAC
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 31 October 2005
Your ref: Stephen Dilley
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Turmer
Direct dial: r ~™
Direct fax : H G RO i
E-mail: to i
O71 OY 2005
Bond Pearce . BOte, oAME
, Solicitors
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We understand that Denise Gammack has left your firm and this matter is now being dealt with by Stephen
Dilley.
You will be aware that the stay of proceedings ordered by Master Fontaine expires at the end of this week. We
have heard nothing from you in relation to our letter of 15 September. Do you intend to respond to it?
__Ygurs faithfully
ROWE COHEN
° Yale
AS We hae nod Spade THe dictate) oa
uae bicuses. Qyay Street. # Manchester
GRO & Emailiaw
Partners: SE Cohan + L Rowe + Bi Horwich » INT Tews « MV. Hymanson + GR.Small ¢ A Dennison * BT. Coghlan + JV. Owak » A. Farley « A. Sacks » A. Taylor
MC Woodall + Rj Sproston » S.Room » A.Curwen » Rj.Myer » H.Bums » SPSwtton Associates: LF Swerlig + AD. Owens » M. Malloy » PSampson Consultant: MT. Horwich
This fem repay the Law Soiegy
ama EVICASTLETONS 11005 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
Also at London GAMARKT\ABBEVICASTLETONI311005 LETTER TO BOND PE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Stephen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sen 31 October 2005.1
To: ‘cheryl. woodwar¢
Ce: ‘mandy.talb¢"~
Subject: RE: Mr L Castlete
Dear Cheryl,
Thanks for your email of 25 October.
Mr Castleton's solicitor is chasing for a substantial reply. The stay is about to expire and the usual practice is then
for the Court to have a hearing to set a timetable for the parties to move the claim forward. The disclosure of
documents is likely to be the first thing that is ordered. If we cannot back up the claim with documents, my
advice is to seek an early settlement.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible in relation to my 18 October email.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and.
cont Original Message- .
From: cheryl. woodwart _ _ GRO
Sent: 25 October 2005
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Re: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Hi Stephen
I would like to thank you for email and attachments dated 18th October 2005.
I have spoken to my Senior Manager who is in contact with various people in relation to this matter and will come
back to you as soon as I have received any further information. We have noted the timescale.
Thanks Cheryl.
JESSE ODIO ISSO ORI SIS ISOS ASS OE IE OBIOSISSKISRI CIOS ASI ISIE AKITA ADE AEA
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.
JE SCOR IOS ISIE IORI SEIS OE IOS OE IES OEIO CORSO SICKO AAI ADI A A ACAI AACA
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
Stephen Dilley
From: — Avril Grigg
Sent: 31 October 2005 14:49
To: Stephen Dilley
j re: Royal Mail and Lee Castleton
31/10/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Stephen Dilley Location: N/A Date: 31 October 2005
Start time: Units:
SJD3 having a telephone conversation with Mr Turner at Rowe Cohen. He wanted to know
where we were up to. I said I had read into the papers and was awaiting instructions from
my client. He said that the previous position with my predecessor is that he was going to
take instructions on a without prejudice expert report that had been sent to us and wanted
to know what I had to say about that. I said I was awaiting instructions and would come
back to him. He wanted to know if I could give him a deadline of when I would hear from the
clients. I said that I did not know but would update him as soon as I heard.
Finalising and despatching email to Cheryl to chase her for a reply.
Time engaged: 12 minutes
1A_1084739_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 20 October 2005
Your ref: DEG1/NJM1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Pile ask for: Mark Turner.
Direct dial: r
Direct fax :
E-mail:
w cE UP
nck
saga
Bond Pearce
_...Solici
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We enclose copies of a letter received by our client from your client and of our response to it, the contents of
which should hopefully speak for themselves..
Yours faithfully
orate
I GRO I
‘ROWE COHEN
Enc
Dennison + B.T: Coghlan +
jaten: LE. Swerling » AD. 0
LN. Lewis » MX. Hymanson » G.P Sm
nen © RJ. Myer + D. Voyra » H. Burns
ton" Molly ‘Convalant: M-T Horwich (
Ss wet
G\MARKTABBEYICASTLETONW01008 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
RINEH J F
A DRIVE+PO To:
Mr Lee Castleton
14 South Marine Drive
Bridlington
YO1S 3DB www.postoffice.co.uk
14th October 2005
Dear Mr Castleton,
I have been asked to write to you in order to gather some information with regards
to thie sale of Maririe Drive Post Office. I understand that the office is currently on
the riarket and I wonder if you could let me have the details of the business transfer
ayert that you are using. Could you please let me know what the current asking
price is and also whether you have reduced the price in order to attract more buyers?
In order to speed the process Up we could also put the details on the Post Office
internet and I wonder what your thoughts are on this.
Could you please let me have these details within the next two weeks, as we need to
find a permanent solution to this issue.
You's Sincerely
Angela Bettison
Area Intervention Manager.
Pos: Office Ltd
The Markets DMB,
6/1 3 Now York Street,
LEEDS,
LSz 7DZ
difice L+u Regis! 20a i England nid Wales nev 2154940, Keyisteted offlew BO - Bb Utd Street London, CIV UNA
J vade maths of Post Offiee Ltd in the UK and other countries
The Post Office and the Pox Oflice sym! are reqint
Fo U8 pupa, oF p oducts segulated sme the Fiesta Serviees & Marnets Acx 200), Past Ofte Lid i an appointed representative of Bristol West pl, wlio
sd reqiisted By tne Finacial Services Authority, Reyistered in Caylana no. 212420}, Regintered Office: Bristol & West pl, One Teenple Back Fist, Temple Quay, Br
suinnew is ad-mininved by RIS, Linited, who ate authorised and regulated by the Financial Suvices Authority, Reatard in knghend No 4231024
House, Anke Roar, Orton Southgate, Peterborough PE? AVS
eced by Citibank lntesnationat ple Unrouoh Pont Ottice td, Citibank Ins reyislured service mask of Glwbank, NA oF Citic
erviews Authority, Registered in England Nude: 1088243. =
1 4796256 29. ienately owned oy Citiqioup ine, New York. U'
Registered otlice
Pust Offre caid accent
Giisenk inter
Riogisteted office
wstnorisa nd ceguiate by the Finacial Se
sue, Canada Square, Casary Wharf. london, E54 SLB. VAT rene:
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 20 October 2005
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mi
GRO
Di dial: Hl
Direct fax : i
E-mail: i
Ms A Bettison
Area Intervention Manager
Post Office Limited
The Markets DMB
6/16 New York Street
Leeds
LS2 7DZ
Dear Madam
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
We act on behalf of Mr Castleton in the litigation that the Post Office is pursuing against him. We have been
passed a copy of your letter of 14 October sent to our client.
We confess that we are somewhat confused by your letter. On what basis do you claim to be entitled to the
information that you seek? Both the property from which Marine Drive Post Office presently operates and the
business that shares the same premises are owned by our client. At no time has our client indicated that he has
any desire or intention to sell the property and his business.
The Post Office has indicated that it wishes to relocate the post office that operates from our client’s premises.
That is its right, although for the avoidance of doubt our client contends in the litigation that is proceeding that
the termination of his contract as a sub-postmaster was wrongful.
Removal of the post office from our client’s premises is an entirely separate issue to that of disposal of our
client’s property and business. It may be that you are under the mistaken impression that our client is seeking
to dispose of his business as a going concern together with the post office that you are presently seeking to
transfer. He is not — the property and his business are categorically not for sale.
It is entirely a matter for you as to how you seek to transfer the post office.
We have copied this letter to Bond Pearce, the solicitors acting on the Post Office’s behalf in the claim against
our client.
Yours faithfully
ROWE COHEN
ce Bond Pearce
ghlen + JN Dwek A. Fake +A. Sacks» A Tylor ye
- Owens » SB Sutton + Mi, Molloy Conmultaat: ML: Horwich (
wed x Sn ABBE) na201005 Lerten to aBEriscN'» POST OFFICE
‘Also at London GAMARKTIABBEVICASTLETO! BEEISON @ post o
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 3
Stephen Dilley
bem: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 18 October 2005 12:43
To: ‘cheryl. woodwardt
Ce: 'mandy.talbot@
Subject: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Attachments: MULTIMEDIA_1077082. TIF
Dear Ms Woodward
I refer to Denise's email of 29 September.
Denise has now left the firm and I am dealing with this matter. I have reviewed the voluminous
papers and thought it would be helpful to set out my view of the case at this point:
Case Summary
1. The Post Office's claim is for approximately £27,115.83 plus interest and costs in respect of
net losses. Clearly, Mr Castleton is contractually responsible for any losses that the Post Office
makes caused by negligence or error. However, the real issue is whether there has been any
real shortfall, or whether this shortfall has really been generated by computer error. To win, the
Post Office must show that there has been a real shortfall.
2. Was Mr Castleton dismissed summarily? If the answer is "yes", then if the Post Office cannot
show that there was a real shortfall and loses its claim and has dismissed him without a good
reason, then unless his contact say otherwise, it appears that you may well have to take Mr
Castleton's wrongful termination claim seriously. He claims that he has suffered loss for up to
£250,000 but those losses have not yet been particularised and I will need to analyse any
evidence in support of them. Please could you supply me a full copy of his contract?
3. From the outset, Mr Castleton's case has consistently been that if you return to him all of the
documents removed by Mrs Ogglesby on 10 May 2004, then he will be able to demonstrate that
the losses are not real. He has repeatedly sought the return of the daily snapshots, because he
believes that the only way to verify the accuracy of the weekly snapshots and weekly balances
is to manually cross check them by reference to the daily snapshots.
Experts' Reports
I enclose copies of the following:-
(a) A without prejudice letter dated 30 September from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond
Pearce;
(b) Bentley Jennison's Report dated 23 September and attachments; and
(c) White & Hoggard's report dated 18 August.
Bentley Jennison state that the deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the
fact that they have been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because
the Horizon system, despite the suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on
the daily snapshot. They have drawn this conclusion through looking at the discrepancy of
£3,509.18 on Thursday 26 February 2004. They then suggest that this double accounting could
have continued over a number of weeks and that as such, Mr Castleton's Defence, “appears to
18/10/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 3
hold potential merit based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed. White &
Hoggard reach a similar conclusion in their report.
Yo .nay think the expert has got it wrong, but even if they have, they can only form their view
‘on the information available and this is what the Court will have to do when the claim gets to
trial.
Further disclosure
Bentley Jennison seek:
(i) A full list of all the transactions carried out within the Post Office (he says that it is not good
enough that management information is not available simply because the "month end has been
closed down".
(ii) The actual audit report prepared by Mrs Ogglesby. He says that the actual report would
have been a manuscript writing document rather than a typed document.
(iii) P and A Reports for weeks 39-52.
(iv) Cash and stock counts for when Mr Castleton began trading and when he stopped being a
Post Office Sub-Postmaster.
(vi) The events log for weeks 39 to 52.
(vii) Transaction log.
In your email to Denise of 26 September, you state that you are probably not going to be able
to produce any further paperwork. However, the onus is on the Post Office to prove its case on
the balance of probabilities. Given the nature of Mr Castleton's Defence, I suspect that the
Court will draw adverse inferences against the Post Office if it is unable to produce relevant
documents that could either help or hinder its case. The outcome could well be that instead of
recovering £27,000, the Post Office ends up paying to Mr Castleton a significant sum for
wrongful termination of his contract.
Next Steps
Do you have the documents that the expert and Mr Castleton have requested?My view is either
that we should obtain the documents to prove the claim is true, or take an early view that it is
unlikely to succeed and that in order to extricate yourselves from proceedings, you will probably
have to make a payment to Mr Castleton, The Court has ordered that the claim be stayed until
3 November 2005 to enable the parties to try to settle.
Once you have reviewed this email, please could you contact me to discuss strategy. It may be
that an early without prejudice meeting or mediation asap would be useful. The worst move
would be to run the claim to trial and then find you cannot produce the documents you need
because at that stage, both parties will have incurred significant costs and the stakes will be
that much higher.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
Bond Pearce LiPo,
18/10/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 3 of 3
Main office phone
18/10/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 10 October 2005
Your ref: DEG1/NJM1/348035.134
OO. of: MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
_ Solicitors
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to our letter of 30 September. We assume that you will by now have received a copy of the Order of
Master Fontaine dated 4 October staying these proceedings for one month to allow the parties to discuss
settlement.
We look forward to hearing from you in relation to our letter of 30 September and in relation to your client’s
position on settlement more generally.
“ROWE COHEN
1 Rowe + DJ. Horwich * LN.
M.C.Woodalt «RJ. Sproston + S. Room + A. Curwen + RJ.
ull» A. Dennison + B.T. Coghl
‘Associates: LF Swerling * AD.
ey © A. Sacks » A Taylor C »)
ne
a.wanirapoencasrLerowioins Lerrer bon reance
‘Also at London /ESTOR IN PEOPLE.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Memo
If you have any questions concerning this
memo please telephone the number below
To: Stephen Lister - Bristol cc: /
From: Julian Summerhayes Ref: ssi\ac134e008.134
Date: 3 October 2005
Post Office Limited
Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
I attach a letter from Rowe Cohen Solicitors of 30 September 2005 (and enclosures).
I cannot immediately recall seeing any details on this case but I do recall, from a brief
conversation with Gareth Kagan,that Denise may have transferred the file to you. If that is
not the case no doubt you will let me know.
Julian-Symmerhayes
1A_1070757_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Dy 30 September 2005
You ref DEGI/NJM1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial: eo
Direct fax : : G RO
E-mail: LL neice
Bond Pearce
Soli
Without Prejudice
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to our recent without prejudice telephone discussions (Mark Turner/Denise Gammack).
As we mentioned when we spoke, we have instructed an expert accounting witness, Chris Hine of Bentley
Jennison, to review the documentation that your client has made available to date. His brief was to consider
certain of those documents in light of our client’s pleaded defence to the effect that the alleged shortfall is (at
least in part — and we cannot be any more specific than that given the incomplete disclosure which has been
given) attributable to problems with the Horizon system.
In order to assist you and your client in understanding our client’s position, we are prepared to disclose to you
on a without prejudice basis the report which Mr Hine has prepared. Since the report refers to a report
prepared by Andrew Richardson of White & Hoggard, a copy of his report together with supporting
documentation is also enclosed.
By way of explanation, Mr Richardson acts as auditor to the business owned by our client’s father in law. His
report was obtained directly by our client as a “second opinion” on the methodology that our client had used
in reviewing the available documentation. To avoid any question of partiality, we commissioned Bentley
Jennison to consider the same documentation as had been available to Mr Richardson, as well as his report,
and to comment on whether they agreed with its findings.
For the complete avoidance of doubt, both documents are made available to you and your client on an entirely
without prejudice basis. Whilst the substance of the Bentley Jennison report is likely to form the core of any
formal report prepared for use in court, we reserve the right to rely on a report which may differ in form to
that which we have presently disclosed.
As you will see, both Mr Richardson and Mr Hine concur with our client’s position that there, at the very
least, discrepancies in the way in which the Horizon system appears to treat weekly balances. This simply
serves to reinforce what both we and our client have said from the outset, namely that the daily balance
snapshots which have not yet been disclosed will be of fundamental importance is analysing whether there is a
problem caused by the way in which the Horizon system operated during our client’s tenure as sub-postmaster
as Marine Drive Post Office.
RO}
Smeal» Fax I
Email aw, H rowecohen.com
wen = I Rowe » DY Harsh’ TN: Lewia + MX. Hymanson + G.P Small + A. Dennison + B.T: Coghlan + JX Dwek « A. Farley + A. Sacks * A. Trylor
odal» Rj. Sporion =. Room » A. Corwen + Rj. Myer * Dayo» H. Burns Asoeate: LE Sweting © AD. Ovens» SP Suton * Mi, Malloy Consultants Horwich C ‘5
Se wt
"hee elated bye Late Sect.
G\MARKT\ABBEYICASTLETON00905 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
Also at London INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
W< ..5ok forward to hearing from you once you and your client have had an opportunity to review the
enclosures to this letter.
Yours faithfully
GRO
ROWE COHEN
Enc
G:\MARKTBBEY\CASTLETON\300905 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bentley Jennison
Our ref: CH/PIB/C1024 Litigation Support
Your ref: © MDT.113969 26 Pall Mall
Manchester
Rowe Cohen
Quay House
Quay Street :
Manchester www. Dentrey-jeMmnsom: corr
M3 3JE
23 September 2005
Dear Sirs
The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Further to your letter of instruction dated 6 September 2005 in the above matter, I set out
below my thoughts on the papers provided for my review.
[have reviewed the following documentation:
¢ Various correspondence between Rowe Cohen and Bond Pearce, between 8 February
and 3 August 2005
© Daily ‘snapshots’ for the Marine Drive Post Office, from Thursday 26 February 2004
to Wednesday 3 March 2004, representing week 49 of the accounting year
© Letter dated 18 August 2005 from Andrew Richardson, principal at accountants White
& Hoggard, to Mr Lee Castleton
¢ Copy of final audit, dated 25 March 2004, as carried out by Miss Helen Hollingworth
(and as attached to the letter dated 25 May 2005, from Bond Pearce to Rowe Cohen)
e Horizon Cash Account (Final) for Week 49
e° Statement of Claim, dated 9 June 2005
e Defence and Counterclaim, dated 15 August 2005
Offices at: Birmingham Bristol Cardiff Harrogate Leeds London Milton Keynes Nottingham Stoke-on-Trent Swindon Telford
A list of Partners’ names is available for inspection at: 26 Pall Mall, Manchester M2 1JR.
Bentley Jennison is registered to carry on audit work by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and
authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority for Investment Business
A member of “oven I] AIG! INTERNATIONAL’ An Association of Independent Professional firms in Europe
ie?
POL00083351
POL00083351
Rowe Cohen 23 September 2005
Page 2 of 5
Daily snapshots for week 49
At Document 1 is a copy of the daily snapshot printed at the end of Thursday 26 February
2004, being Day One of the week. This shows a discrepancy of £3,509.18.
I note that this an identical amount to that recorded by the Horizon system as having been
deficient in week 48, as identified in the audit undertaken by Helen Hollingworth, the
schedule for which is set out at Document 2.
This schedule also shows that cumulative deficiencies of £8,243.10 were put into a suspense
account relating to weeks 43-46, although I note that no figure appears to be disclosed
specifically for the following week, week 47.
The identical amounts of £3,509.18 point to two possible scenarios, either that (a) there has
been a deficiency suffered on day one of week 49 that exactly matches the sum of the
deficiency for the whole of week 48, or (b) the figure is the brought forward deficiency from
week 48. I consider it reasonable to assume that option (b) is the most likely scenario.
On Day Two of Week 49, being Friday 27 February 2004, an entry for £3,509.68 is shown as
“Loss a 2a in”, per Document 3.
Iam unable to explain the difference of 50 pence between the suspense account figure and the
daily snapshot deficiency, although I note that in White & Hoggard’s report they explain that
Mr Castleton informed them this was a manual entry following instructions from Horizon
technical support.
The £3,509.68 appears to represent the entry on the suspense account (Document 4) for the
same amount, processed on 27 February 2004, which I would expect given the daily snapshot
entry.
Suspense account
A suspense account is generally used by accountants to ‘park’ transactions that have either
been erroneously posted and are pending correction, or which, as is the case here, are
transactions that are either unreconciled or unexplainable.
From my experience, the impact of a suspense posting would allow a line to be drawn under
the cumulative deficiencies on the daily prints, effectively resetting the figure to zero, which
should be reflected as such on the end of day print.
However, it is evident that on the end of day print (Document 5) there is still a deficiency of
£3,509.18, notwithstanding the suspense account entry.
Bentley Jennison
POL00083351
POL00083351
Rowe Cohen 23 September 2005
Page 3 of 5
This again leads to two possible scenarios, either that (a) following the suspense account
entry an identical shortage of £3,509.18 was again borne by the branch during the course of
the day, or (b) the Horizon system, despite the suspense account entry, has failed to recognise
the entry on the daily snapshot, leaving the figure of £3,509.18 unchanged.
Again, after considered reflection, it is more probable that scenario (b) has occurred.
For Days 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Saturday 28 February 2004 - Tuesday 2 March 2004), identical entries
occur in relation to the figure of £3,509.68, with a cumulative deficiency of £3,509.18 being
shown at the end of each day.
For the final day of week 49, Wednesday 3 March 2004, the entry of £3,509.68 again is
recorded, however the total deficiency now shows £3,512.26 (Document 6), an increase of
£3.08, and supported by the final Horizon Cash Account print (Document 7).
I note that in week 49 the cost of a first class stamp was 28 pence. The increase of £3.08
could, therefore, represent (and in line with Andrew Richardson’s opinion) a scenario
whereby a book of 12 first class stamps was sold, but only money for one single stamp was
taken (ie (12 x 0.28) — 0.28).
Having already concluded that the system should have no longer been recognising the
£3,509.18 (posted to suspense) on a daily basis, the only discrepancy for the week should, in
my opinion, have been the £3.08 deficiency apparently borne on Wednesday 3 March 2004.
The system has, therefore, appeared to overstate the deficiency for the week by the amount of
the deficiency in week 48, being £3,509.18.
The report of White & Hoggard essentially appears to reach the same conclusion, in that this
sum has been erroneously double counted.
Cumulative deficiencies
I would note that the Horizon system, from the documentation I have reviewed, appears to
record deficiencies on a cumulative basis, hence the running total of £8,243.10 up to the end
of week 46 being rolled into week 47’s suspense account and carried forward to week 49
(Document 4).
Based on this approach, the integrity of the system is heavily dependent upon weekly figures
being both accurate, and carried forward correctly.
In the isolated case of week 49 this appears not to have taken place, with the implication that
errors could, theoretically, have been double counted over a number of weeks.
Bentley Jennison
POL00083351
POL00083351
Rowe Cohen 23 September 2005
Page 4 of 5
As such, Mr Castleton’s defence, that the root of the problem lies with the inaccurate figures
produced by Horizon, appears to hold potential merit based on the limited documentation I
have so far reviewed.
Clearly, however, I have only had sight of the daily snapshots for week 49, which although
appearing to indicate an error within the Horizon system for that short period, does not
necessarily mean that it has been replicated for other weeks. This can only be checked
through an analysis of the daily snapshots for all relevant periods.
Andrew Richardson’s conclusion that “the balance of probabilities would suggest that it is
quite likely that this has also happened in earlier periods” is, 1 suspect, a little premature and
can only be proven following a more detailed review.
Equally, other issues aside from the discrete problems evident in Week 49 may be uncovered,
upon a more detailed inspection of relevant Horizon documentation.
Disclosure
The documentation I would ideally need sight of (further to that listed in your letter dated 11
April 2005, and presuming such papers were used in the normal course of business at the
branch) to gain a clearer picture of how Horizon worked, and whether it was working as
intended, is as follows:
* Daily snapshots for the period preceding, during, and following the alleged
deficiencies borne under the management of Mr Castleton, which as suggested in copy
correspondence might be from weeks 39-52 inclusive, although for completeness (and
if considered cost effective) it may be appropriate to analyse the period from when
Horizon was first used in the branch to gauge the effectiveness of the system from
Day One
¢ Copy of the full audit report following the inspection made by Helen Hollingworth
and Chris Taylor, on 25 March 2004, to include a breakdown of the week 51 balance
of £11,210.56 (Document 2)
¢ P&A reports produced for weeks 39-52, summarising sums paid to customers in
allowances through vouchers, and any vouchers supporting the reports
¢ Cash and stock count at the points in time when Mr Castleton began/left his post as
subpostmaster
e Events log produced by the Post Office centrally, summarising which individuals are
working on the Horizon system, and when the various reports were produced within
the branch - for weeks 39-52 inclusive
Bentley Jennison
POL00083351
POL00083351
Rowe Cohen 23 September 2005
Page 5 of 5
e Transaction log produced by the Post Office, which should summarise all financial
transactions undertaken by the branch - weeks 39-52 inclusive
e Any contemporaneous notes made by Mr Castleton in relation to the Horizon system,
or by any other employees, or by anyone who may have been assisting Mr Castleton in
the initial period following his appointment as subpostmaster
I trust the contents of this letter are self-explanatory, but if you should require clarification on
any of the matters raised herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully
{ I Chris Hine
National Litigation Support Partner
Enc.
Bentley Jennison
POL00083351
POL00083351
a 2 2
7 Document 1
‘ Karine I rive FRO: 2133377
7:30 26/02/2004 = cws49.BbO1 SU AR
i ice Snapshot ~ Office Copy
' seeeesDiscrepanetes in this Acounteeeene
‘Discrepancy OVER
Discrepancy ‘SHORT
these discrepancy
Euoeteesrcasennevenssnnteceennoorneret
VALUE STOCK & MOP VOLUME VALUE
Cash 83966. 94
as
its a7
He w LICENCE STANP 7
St a tard
First Day y Ew 4“
pres ba
Kini
ltarecte eas
class step 363
First Class Stanps
2nd class stay 3508
Second Class Stanps m
Postaye stup
Airletter Pack 3
Airletter Single ib
Ink ¥ep coupon 7 .
SplDel SDL 7? !
. ‘SplDel Sb2 5
Other Postage Tees :
3/4 endl A
Second Class S/A Stups H
S/a tstxl00
First Class 9/8 Steps
Special ist 950
‘Special end 1000
‘Special Europe 100
Special 47p
Special €bp 190 ;
Special 42p 100 I
Special Stanps !
AS bk ist x 12 ry
bk end x 1 43 a
SAS bk ist 1 & 4b ie
Stp bk eura x 6 At Te
j
Sbaap Hooks tise
$0 phonecrd £5
$0 phonecrd £10, 10
honecrd £20 8
Fa
BO Holidyerd £10 20
a granted Call Cards
‘PHONE CARDS:
PO 50p v
i dl 19
pO #2 16
PO Ed 3
AB 8
PO £8 g Gree
fo 8 a "a: ss
Gift PO £5 uM
Gift PO £10 g \o, 6
Gift Po £20 ua
Face Value
0 fee wv
PO fee £1 1 i
pO fee £2 rt é
PO fee £4 a
FO fee ie 3 .
PO fee £7 te i
PO fee £8 3
fre 19 3 :
fee £15 at
Gift PO fee £9 uy
Gift PO fee £10
Bift PO fee £20 Ag
fee
: OSTA tne
Instants £1 1367
Instants @2 ‘
Instarts £9 fe
Instants £5 Fi
ta LOT A WOK
LATE SCRATETES
HL
int Sais sre
™ *s TOTAL STOCK & NOP
POL00083351
POL00083351
Document 2
To: From: ce:
Cath Oglesby Helen Hollingworth
Inspector _I
Date: 25" March 2004
Audit of Post Office ® Marine Drive branch, FAD 213337
An audit took place at Marine Drive Post Office on the 25" March 2004.
Helen Hollingworth led the audit and in attendance was Chris Taylor. The audit
commenced at 8.00am and on our arrival the sub postmaster was very pleased to
see us. He explained problems he had been having at the office regarding
balancing. His problems with balancing started in week 43 with a mis-balance of
-4230.97. He was adamant that no members of staff could be committing theft
and felt that the mis-balances were due to a computer problem. He had been in
contact with the Retail Line Manager Cath Oglesby and the Horizon help line
regularly since the problems began. The following table gives further weeks
balance declarations on the cash account.
48 = -3509.18
46 = 8243.10
45 -6730.01
44 -6754.09
43 -4230.97
48 -3509.18 This amount put into suspense week 49
46 -8243.10 This amount put into suspense week 47
45 -6730.01 Rolled loss
44 -6754.09
43. -4230.97
In week 47 £8243.10 was put into suspense. Although horizon had been
contacted and'the Retail Line was aware of this figure, this was not authorised. In
week.49 £3509.68 was added to make the amount carried in the suspense
account total £11752.78. This was also not authoriséd:
week 51 balance -£11210.56
suspense account * ~£11752.78
expected audit result - £22563.34
difference at audit - £2795.41 (-£1769.00 lottery -£1026.41 cash)
audit result - £25758.75 .
On the completion of the audit the Retail Line Manager Cath Oglesby was
contacted, along with the Investigation team and the Audit Line Manager. The
sub postmaster was suspended pending enquiries and an interim postmaster was
put in charge at the office.
Pensions
DEA wilk thn
ilk fokens P29
eseT AAR LDUNICES
1 sp ran
Hat TV Licence Stanp tea
SAVIN SAAPS REDESMED
Oth veh to ty
Niscel laneous
oe TEMS
Loss a 22 in
vee patens j
watt Lote aes
Breen giro %
Green Girotheques
yee ite
CU UINET axeoeleaes :
(Ercan eres 0.00
=p 100.90
ERG MING CY EAH 100.00
tae ow 2 170.09
ance ise, ithdrawls 17000
EARNS Bt 80.00
Terlays ithirovals 00
oh wR
Card account vithéravals
(Hey ash with ag @ 150.00
glass jaa 150.00
vice man WT PIM 198887
Yigg pebat 277.38
42.67
weit Sen wn om 320.55,
Transfers ut 2000
fen tut Data Con 1152.20
Ren (ut Client 2.09
fen uut Bato Dist 9.00
EHTS OH i assere0
feval town fy 000
Total Stock & fo? 102245.39
Hatt discrapancies 3002.18
sU7AL PAYERS 12870237
Balance t/Fid 109054.53
vce EHD OF REPORT #4
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
Document 4
Marine Drive FAD 2133377 Page 2
17:38:00 03/03/2004 CAP 49
Suspense Account - Office Copy
WARNING - Check the C/fwd column for negative values. If present refer to the
Horizon User Guide for instructions on how to proceed
Volume value B/Fwa c/ewd
su Date Product.
RD Cheques A
TOTAL
RD Cheques B
TOTAL
RD Cheques
‘TOTAL ° 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vouchers
‘TOTAL ° 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shortages in Rems ete
TOTAL
Burglary etc losses
TOTAL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
POL Cheques
TOTAL ° 0.00 0.00 0.00
Migration UP
TOTAL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cash Shortages A
BA 27/02/04 Loss A to Table 2a 1 3,509.68
€ 1 3,509.68 8,243.10 31,752.78
TOTAL
Cash Shortages B
TOTAL
o
Cash shortages
TOTAL
Cash Shortages D
0 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL
Prepurchases
TOTAL
Cash Surpluses not yet adjusted A
TOTAL
Cash Surpluses not yet adjusted B
Miarive drive Faby 2133377
HH erfie/e004 CAA BhsOL Slr AA
Salanee Snapshot ~ Office Copy
eeonshiscrepaities in this Gecounbexenr
sDiserepancy 0 004
sDiscrepancy SHIRT
x
HNetE discrepancy
» - 4
IG RS
VALUE SOCK 8 NUP VOLUME vane
Cash 2017.00
ar
TY stup £2
bye TW Livekce sien
Staup Card
3
firietier inte 18
int 3p cy
sone st 6
‘Splvel S02 5
Other Postage Iteos
‘Ma anda
Second Class S/A Stups
3a Istal0b 18
First Class $/8 Stops
Special Ist 930
Special 2nd 1000
Special Europe 100
Special A7p 100
Special 669 300
pecial 420 400
Special Stamps
bese
G85 bk 2nd x M 8
SAS bk Ist x 6 0
Sip bk euro § 4
Stauy Hooks ~ Mise
POSTHBE
PO phonecrd 4
PO phonecrd £10 10
honecrd £2 a
I PO folidyers $10
¥G Branded Call Cards
PAGE: CARDS
3050p y
Po at 3
BO fe 16
PO 34 3
PO fb 3
po 0 2
BO £8
Po 89
FO £15 20
Gift PO 65 2
Birt #0 £10 6.
Bite PQ £20 ul
Face Value
0 toe SOp ”
BO fee fh 9
00 tee £2 1%
PO fee £4 3
PO fee 6 3
PO fee £7 i
PO fee £5 3
10 fee 3
50 fee £15 2
Gift Po fee £5 12
Bilt PO fee £10 6
Gift BO fee 20 AL
Fees
POSTAL OADERS
instants £1 1360
Instants {2 455
Jastants £3 128
instants £ Ed
HAT LOT INSTAAT BIH Galt
ood lotto
LiTALsMouD Scrarcuies
sty
AVL SAVINGS SresiP
TwTAL*S(uCK & HOP
POL00083351
POL00083351
Document 5
POL00083351
POL00083351
Document 6
Marine drive oo!
‘07537 047032004 CHP 49
Final kalanee > office
ssupenDiscrepancies in:thi
sBiscrepency GER,
Discrepancy SHAT =
‘
lett discrepancy
Fi
Fegeepaeeenconpatecen beeaenten
VALUE STOCK & HOP YOLUNE
HEEB 6:
Kini Sheets
PRILGTELIC TEAS
Tours i
W224:
AST eE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Pager—"T-Uifice code: 2133377 Week No: 49 Week Ending: 03/03/2004 Date: 04/03/2004 Time: 07:46
, 08/03/20
OFFICE NAM. Marine Drive Ne 2003/2004 Week No I 49 Document 7
ADDRESS: 14 South Marine Drive ar, HORIZON -
aitngton “oe Cash Account (Final)
é YO15 3DB
TELEPHONE: Ay
Week Ended: 03/03/2004
OFFICECODE: 43 3377 30
TQ BE SIGNED BEFORE DESPATCH OF CASH ACCOUI
SUBPOSTMASTER/FRANCHISEE/BRANCH MANAGER:
EXAMINED IN TP:
TABLE 2 UNCLAIMED PAYMENTS TABLE 10(g) NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS
50 £ op Date = 92.
26 Unpaid Cheques A E111 Certificates
27 Unpaid Cheques B 08 Chgs
28 Unpeld Cheques C NS ISA Cash Gross Warr
29 Cibenk M Order
30 Vouchers
31 ‘Sortages ln REMS ete Parcetorce by 9& 10
32 Burglary ete Lesses Parcelforce 24/48
33 POL Chq pension hommes Intomat Datepost
34 Low Cover
35 ‘Maretion Medium Cover
36 High Cover
37 Contract Parcels niand
38 Contract Parcels intemat
Special Deheery Hems
UKPA Contingency
Kirsure
TABLE 2(e) AUTHORISED CASH SHORTAGES a Intemational signed for ¢
got ws Shiite
50 24
46 +++-+11,752 Cash Shortages A Percetforce by noon
AT ‘Cash Shortages B
48 Cash Shortages C Disc Whise Packs
49 Cash Shertages D Postmens Pouches
SORN
Gas ReconPDiscon
Camelot Vouchers
C TABLE 3 UNCHARGED RECEIPTS- TVLU7S Pre-Application
50 Pre-order Buy Back
60 Home Shop Retums >
61
62 ‘Standard Life SHP Apps
63 Pre-purchase PCL Smartcard Applications
64 Cast Surplis A MVL Postal Appications
65 Cosh Surplus B
66 ‘Surplises in Rems ele
67
68 Moreton
71 ‘SWEBAEB
72
LUNK Balance Enquiries
Card Account balance enquies
DISCREPANCIES TABLE ASL Bolonca Enquiies
‘Speciel Debvery by 9,00am
07
o1 Surpis
02 ----- 3,512,26 _ Shortoge
_— .
White & Hoggard
Spapisbared to carry. on 13 Wheelgale
audi work and regulated for a Mallon
vange of Inuesiment Business Neovthe Yorkshure
activities ly the Association of YOU FAT
Chartered Certified Accountants Telephond”
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL Faz: ios
Mr Lee Castleton
Marine Drive Post Office Our Ref AWR/GL/1/F031
14 South Marine Drive Your Ret
Bridlington
East Yorkshire Date 18" August 2005
YO15 3DB
Dear Lee
You have asked me to produce a report on my findings following my examination of the
documents presented to me for Marine Drive Post Office in respect of the week ended 3" March
2004 and the apparent discrepancy claimed by the Post Office which I understand at 4" March
2004 amounted to £15,265.04.
I have therefore examined the daily balance printouts that you produced covering the period 26"
February 2004 to 4 March 2004 and also the report marked “Horizon Cash Account (Final)”
dated 4'" March 2004 in relation to the week ended 3 March 2004,
My conclusions are as follows:-
a) The Horizon Cash Account (Final) Report for week 49 (week ended 3" March 2004)
produced on 4" March 2004 (time 07:46) indicates the following:
Table 2 (a) authorised cash shortages (A) 11,752.78
Discrepancies Table 3,512.26
Total £ 15,265.04
b) The Suspense Account summary attached to the report — office copy dated 3 March 2004
(time 17:38) produces the following under the heading “Cash Shortages A”
AA 27" February 2004 Loss A to Table 2a 3,509.68
Brought forward 8,243.10
Total £ 11,752.78
PRINCIPAL: Andrew W. Richardson F.C.C.A.
MANAGERS: Keith A. Rhodes F.C.C.A.
Mrs Lesley R. Richardson
POL00083351
POL00083351
c)
d)
‘The difference between the above two reports is £3,512.26 (I will refer to this figure later in
my observations).
The Horizon Cash Account (Final) Report for week no.49 (week ended 3 March 2004) dated
4" March 2004 (time 07:46) indicates the following:
Balance Due to Post Office 97,014.07
Less Stock (Table A) (9,036.41)
Less Cash (Table 5) (72,712.62)
Shortfall £ 15,265.04
The above entry at (d) above appears to me to comprise the following:
1. Discrepancies Table 3,512.26
2. AA 21* February 2004 Loss A to Table 2a 3,509.68
3. Brought forward from earlier periods 8,243.10
Total £ 15,265.04
It follows, therefore, that we need to ascertain how each of the above apparent discrepancies
at paragraph (e) have arisen.
In order to attempt to explain the apparent discrepancies I have prepared a detailed analysis of
the daily balance printouts covering the period 26" February 2004 (time 17:30) to 4" March
2004 (time 07:46). I have used the Horizon Cash Account (Final) Report for the analysis of
the movements on 4" March 2004. My conclusions are as follows:
1. Discrepancies Table - £3,512.26
This figure is not on the Suspense Account Summary dated 3" March 2004 but appears to
comprise part of the overall shortfall (see a and c above). This figure appears to include the
‘discrepancies in this account” summary on the “final balance” sheet dated 26" February
2004 but is recorded as £3,509.18 increasing by £3.08 (which I believe is a book of stamps) to
£3,512.26 on 3 March 2004. It is understood that the sum of £3,509.18 is a discrepancy
from an earlier period. I have seen no evidence to reveal how this discrepancy from the
earlier period has been arrived at.
2. AA 27" February 2004 Loss A to Table 2 a - £3,509.68
On the “final balance” sheet dated 26" February 2004 (time 17:30) there is an entry for “net
discrepancies” of £3,509.18 which equates to the “discrepancies in this account” entry ~ see ¢
I above.
On the “balance snapshot — office copy” sheet dated 27" February 2004 (time 17:31) there is
an entry “OTHER PAYMENTS” loss a — 2a amounting to £3,509.68. This entry is then
repeated daily.
I understand from my telephone conversation with you that this amount was input manually
under instructions from Horizon technical support which probably explains the difference of
50p from the previously mentioned sum of £3,509.18.
ff the sum of £3,509.68 is indeed the same entry as the sum of £3,509.18 recorded in g 1
above, and it seems highly likely that this is the case, there is a duplication in the apparent
shortfall
POL00083351
POL00083351
h)
It follows that a rational explanation is needed for this apparent double counting in the
Post Office records.
3. Brought forward from Earlier Period - £8,243.10
In addition to having no documentary evidence to support the discrepancy of £3,509.18,
which appears to be duplicated by the further entry of £3,509.68, there is no documentation to
support the discrepancies from earlier periods amounting to £8,243.10. It is therefore
absolutely essential to obtain documentary evidence supporting the discrepancies that
are claimed to have arisen in the earlier periods of £3,509.18 and £8,243.10.
Conclusion
From the limited available evidence of one weeks transactions referred to above my
conclusion is that it is highly likely that the sum of £3,509.18 has been recorded twice
increasing the apparent discrepancy during the week ended 3 March 2004. On the
assumption that I am correct in this conclusion, and there seems to be no rational explanation
for this amount appearing twice other than my conclusion, then there has to be doubt as to
whether or not the discrepancies brought forward from earlier periods of £3,509.18 and
£8,243.10 can be substantiated. It is therefore absolutely imperative that the Post Office
produce documentation to justify their claim for the earlier periods in order to produce
evidence that the system is operating correctly. At the present time it would appear to me that
during the week ended 4" March 2004 an incomplete instruction to input a manual entry of
£3,509.18 (incorrectly entered as £3,509.68) has created a double counting of this amount in
the calculations produced by the Post Office of shortfall. If this has happened for the one
week where we have documentary evidence then the balance of probabilities would suggest
that it is quite likely that this has also happened in earlier periods and has to cast doubt on the
credibility of the claim made by the Post office which therefore needs to be examined in some
further detail with the benefit of supporting documentation.
I hope that the above report is of some assistance.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Andrew W Righanasoi
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
tei i
Memo
If you have any questions concerning this
memo please telephone the number below
To: Stephen Dilley cc: Laura Peto
From: Denise Gammack Ref: DEG1\SIR2\348035.134
Direct: I GRO 7 Date: 29 September 2005
Claim against Mr Lee Castleton
I know that we have already had a brief discussion about this matter, and I have passed you
the files already. I did say I would also let you have a memo outlining the background
issues, which I set out below.
If you need any more general information about these sorts of claims that CMS are dealing
with I am sure that Laura will be able to help you. You may also be able to get some
assistance from your relatives!
I set out the main issues below:
Background
CMS have been passed bulk instructions from Royal Mail (via Stephen Lister) to prosecute
sub-postmasters/mistresses for losses that Royal Mail say occurred during the course of their
employment. Indeed, the losses normally lead to their dismissal.
Traditionally, Royal Mail’s approach to this has been to prosecute the former employee for
theft and to get them convicted, to make a public showing of the fact that these losses will
not be tolerated. However, the focus now is very much on recovering the money rather than
obtaining a conviction.
The contracts that these employees sign have a clause in them which effectively states that
after their employment has ended, the former employee is liable to repay Royal Mail any
losses found to have arisen at the sub-post office. In the first instance Royal Mail tries to
recover these from the former employee direct and when that correspondence fails, the
matter comes to us to issue proceedings.
That is what has happened in relation to Mr Castleton.
Mr Castleton’s Case
Mr Castleton was dismissed from his position at the Marine Drive sub-post office in
Bridlington, Yorkshire when it was found that his sub-post office had suffered losses in excess
of £25,000. Initially Mr Castleton considered employment tribunal proceedings for unfair
dismissal but decided against it.
Initially, Royal Mail did try to recover this loss from him direct but, as you will see from the
correspondence, he has always denied that any loss exists at all. Mr Castleton’s position is
that the “loss” has been created by errors within the computer system that the sub-
postmasters/mistresses use to operate the sub-post office.
1A_1069580_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
This computer system is called Horizon. Royal Mail are in the process of removing this
system so that a new, more streamlined one, can be installed instead. However, for the
rposes of this case Horizon is the relevant system.
Mr Castleton insists that if he can be provided with copies of records showing the daily
transactions made on the Horizon system while he was at the sub-post office, he will be able
to use them to show that the “loss” is a fiction created by errors in the system. Mr
Castleton’s solicitor claims that his client currently has only one week’s worth of such print
outs, and has already sent them to an expert.
The expert has been instructed to prepare a report to confirm Mr Castleton’s case. We are
going to be sent this on a without prejudice basis once it is finalised and I expect it to arrive
shortly.
Our client is aware that the temporary sub-post office staff that replaced Mr Castleton
suffered no problems at all with the Horizon computer in question.
Disclosure
Clearly, disclosure of the computer records maintained while he was at the sub-post office
and an examination of the system itself are crucial in this case, However, disclosure has also
been a particular problem in this matter. Mr Castleton has repeatedly requested copies of
documents that were taken away after an investigation at the sub-post office was completed
and insists that these will include the daily records he needs. We have asked Royal Mail
repeatedly to disclose everything that they can find but this turns out to be more difficult
than one might anticipate.
When Royal Mail investigate sub-postmasters/mistresses for losses, they have an
investigation team which comprises various people in several different offices. This means
that paperwork gets spread out between them, and sometimes gets lost, and even
sometimes gets destroyed. In addition Royal Mail put a lot of documents into a storage
system and to get items out of it they have to pay the storage facility to do that. Royal Mail
do not like doing this, at all, and tries to avoid it.
This issue was raised at a training day that I recently attended where we emphasised to
Royal Mail the importance of disclosure and they acknowledge that they need to get
themselves re-organised in this respect. You may wish to have a look at a case called Post
Office v Mehida which does deal specifically with this issue.
The most recent correspondence that I have had from Cheryl Woodward at our client gives
me the impression that they may well want to pull out of these proceedings. They say that
they cannot locate anymore relevant documents and they want to see the other side’s expert
report. I have told them that we will send it when it arrives and that in the meantime we
need to deal with the ongoing Court proceedings.
The Court Proceedings
Proceedings were commenced in the Scarborough County Court. Mr Castleton subsequently
filed a Defence and Counterclaim for losses incurred as a result of losing his employment
which should not have happened because there is no loss. This Counterclaim is not
quantified but is limited to £250,000. As a result of this the claim has now been transferred
by the Court to the Queens Bench Division in London.
The matter has been allocated to a Master Fontaine, as yet no further directions have been
received. Royal Mail prefer to use particular barristers in relation to these matters and for
this one I have lined up David Craig at Devereux Chambers. He was recommended to me by
Mandy Talbot (who I know you have already met) and his clerk confirms his general
availability although I have not yet sent him any papers. David Craig was involved in the
Mehida case above and so is well aware of the problems relating to disclosure.
Contacts
Our main client contact in this matter is a debt recovery investigator at the Chesterfield office
‘d. I normally contact her by e-mail on
4A 1069580_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Mandy Talbot is aware that this matter has been transferred to London and has requested
that she be copied in to all further e-mails. In addition she needs to be sent a scanned copy
of the expert report, when that comes in.
andy tells me that in previous cases where Defendants have alleged problems with the
computer system, reference has been made to the amount of telephone calls recording
complaints made to the service desk and where there have been none such defences have
failed. I know that in this case we have such records on the file from Fujitsu, who used to
operate the Horizon system for the client.
Mandy has also given me the contact details for a Keith Baines at Fujitsu who may need to be
called on to provide a witness statement. Mandy has indicated that as Fujitsu no longer
operate the Horizon system he may not be as co-operative as we would like, nevertheless I
do have his contact details, which are:
Keith Baines
Post Office Limited
Second Floor
Calthorpe House
15-20 Phoenix Place
London
WC1X 0DG
Next Steps
I should be grateful if you would assume conduct of this matter and continue to progress it
further. I am sure that Laura will be able to assist you where necessary with preparation of
documents, etc. I will let Chery! know that I am leaving and I will give her your contact
details instead.
If you have any further queries before I leave please let me know.
While I have been assisting CMS with this matter they have continued to prepare the bills for
me, on a monthly basis. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not that can continue!
Regards.
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
1A_1069580_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
L Date: 6 September 2005
Your ref: DEG1/NJM1/348035.134
oO f MDT.113969
Please ask for: .. Mark Tumer___. -
Direct dial: i I
Direct fax : G RO i
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
Dear Sirs
Onur client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We enclose a copy of our client’s allocation questionnaire.
Yours faithfully
ROWE COHEN
Enc
lan © JN Dek « A. Ftly + A Sacks» A Tiplor
'AD, Owene “SB Suton" M, Moly Conant: MT: Horwich q
G\MARKTVABBEY\CASTLETON‘060905 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Sallv Rundle
Denise Gammack
29 September 2005 11:23
Sally Rundle
FW: Lee Castleton
Can you put a copy of this reply on the file as well please thanks
Original Message.
From: cheryl.woodward.
Sent: 29 September 2005 12:19
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
Thanks for that information.
Good luck for whatever you are moving on to.
Cheryl.
JESSE EI OSGI SEI OSI ISI AIEEE IIIA ISI SI OIISIOK ICSI OK DIOR CASI OR CASI EASA OR SASK
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.
JER OS OSE ROCCE SCO BICKI OSE IEICE CIE ICSC II ISI AKA IA IA IAA AK AK
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
S ‘Rundle
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 29 September 2005 10:34
To: Sally Rundie
Subject: FW: Lee Castleton
Hi - could you print this off and file it, Stephen has the file in his room thanks
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 29 September 2005 10:34
To: ‘cheryl.woodwar
Cc: Laura Peto
Subject: Lee Castleton
Dear Cheryl,
I just wanted to confirm that as yet I have not received the report from Mr Castleton's
solicitors. I shall let you have a copy when it arrives, Mandy Talbot has also asked for a copy
to be emailed to her which we can also do.
In the meantime I need to let you know that this week, I am leaving Bond Pearce. Laura will
still be here to deal with matters but I have also asked my colleague Stephen Dilley to assist
Laura with this after my departure. Stephen is also a solicitor in the firm's Commercial
Litigation and Regulation department and I am sure thi ill le to assist you to its
conclusion. Stephen's email address is stephen.di
If you have any queries in the meantime please feel free to contact me, it has been a pleasure
to assist you this far and I hope that it concludes favourably,
Regards
Denise
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
www. Borapearce:coni
29/09/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: cheryl. woodwar¢ GRO k
Sent: 26 September 2005 14527 *
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
It looks as though we are not able to produce any further paperwork. I spoke to Anne Allaker last week she said
she would contact you again. She has tried contacting another source to see if they have any paperwork relating
to this case.
Is there any chance we could see the evidence that Mr Castleton has on the investigation on the paperwork he
has had checked.
Cheryl.
JESSE ROSIE OS ORC ISI SIOSE SE OCOKOCE COKE IE OCIORIE IDI OSIOEIOI IIA IRI ACI IAI AIK
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.
JOBS IE OR OS OE IERIE IE COREE CORSO O CE ROC ORE IE IDI ORIOKAACE TIE RICKI IK
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
De* ‘se Gammack
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 26 September 2005 14:38
To:
Dear Cheryl,
Thank you for your email.
I will send you a copy of Mr Castelton's expert's report once I have had it in from his solicitor - I
haven't seen it yet but I expect it shortly.
In terms of paperwork, the main thing that Mr Castleton is after is more daily snapshots from
Horizon so that he/his expert can try to show how the whole "debt" is accounted for by system
problems (they say).
I have not heard further from the court who I expect to hear from shortly as well in terms of
either issuing directions or listing a hearing to deal with case management, and again once I
hear from them I shall let you know.
In the meantime, if any further avenues in terms of documents can be explored, please let me
know how you get on with those. Given that the Counsel we have lined up was involved with
the Mehida case (I presume this is familiar to you but if not I apologise and can send you a case
report) it may be as well to ask him for an advice on the merits of continuing on with the
documents we have, including Mr Castleton's expert's report.
I will contact you again once I have heard from the court/other side,
Denise
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
26/09/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
”) HER MAJESTY'S 7
HER MAJESTY'S COURTS SERVICE
Rr oS SERVICE SUPREME COURT GROUP
I Y IC QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Judgments & Orders
Room No: E15
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
GRO
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of hearing)
www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk
Our ref:
Your ref:
15th September 2005
Dear Sir/Madam
RE : Case Number : HQ05X02706
Post Office Limited v Mr Lee Castleton
This action commenced on the 9th June 2005 under number 5SZ00651 has now been transferred
to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, London, pursuant to
an order dated 12th September 2005.The assigned Master is Master Fontaine. The above number
has been allocated.Please quote the new number when making enquiries.
Yours faithfully
Mark Quigley
Judgments & Orders
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 14 September 2005
Your ref: DEG1/NJIM1/348035.134
Ow é& MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for your letter of 7 September with enclosed copy allocation questionnaire.
We would have expected you to serve a copy of your client’s Defence to Counterclaim along with the
allocation questionnaire. Having spoken with the court, it has confirmed that no Defence to Counterclaim
appears to have been received.
Would you please confirm whether a Defence to Counterclaim was filed with the allocation questionnaire and,
if so, provide a copy to us by return?
Rowe ©
M.C.oodall « RJ. Sproston + 8. Room
win » MX Hymanson » G2 Smal» A Dennen «BT Copan «IN Dc «A Fay «A Sachs + "Dor
ewe RJ. Myr» Dro H. Bure Astoclate’ Li Sweling ° AD. Ovens“ Si Suton» M Melly Conoultnt MT. Horwich C 5
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: cheryl.woodwat GRO
Sent: 08 September 20U5 11:41”
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
I've just spoken to Anne Allaker who is going to contact you in relation to what paperwork they have found and
what else they may or may not find.
Her contact number is
Please get back to me if need be.
Thanks Cheryl.
SEIS OEIC OI ISIE I OSI SSI OE SSRIS ISIC OIE ICI ICAI ACIASI IEA RAIA EA
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.
JESSIE SBOE IE RICCO EI ICSE OCIO CIE IC OCIACI IC OCIA ACI ORAS IAI ITAA IK IC EA ACA AK A
POL00083351
POL00083351
7 September 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
The Court Manager
Scarborough County Court
Pavilion House
Valley Bridge Road
Scarborough
. Our ref:
North Yorkshire DEG1/SIR2/348035.134
YO11 23S Your ref:
Dear Sirs
Post Office Limited v Lee Castleton
Claim No. 5SZ00651
We act for the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant in the above matter.
We enclose our client’s Allocation Questionnaire for filing together with our cheque for £100 in favour of
HMCS.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in Englond and Wales number OC311430
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redciiff Street Bristol 851 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1060435_1
7 September 2005
Rowe Cohen Solicitors
14352 MCR-1
Dear Sirs
Your Client: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Our Client: Post Office Limited
We enclose a copy of our client’s allocation questionnaire.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership, Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redciiff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A\list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office, Regulated by the Law Society.
1A_1060651_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Our ref:
DEG1/LAF1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Allocation questionnaire Inthe Scarborough County Court
To be completed by, or on behalf of,
Post Office Limited Claim No. I 5SZ00651
who is [XXX [2K] KK) [XXX] [Claimant] (KXAKMAKKY Last date for THINS I 5 September 2005
PRARODDOOQHOXKH in this claim
Please read the notes on page five before completing the questionnaire.
You should note the date by which it must be returned and the name of the court it should be
returned to since this may be different from the court where proceedings were issued.
If you have settled this claim (or if you settle it on a future date) and do not need to have it
heard or tried, you must let the court know immediately.
CINo
Have you sent a copy of this completed form to the other party(ies)?
A __ Settlement
Do you wish there to be a one month stay to attempt to settle the claim, either by
informal discussion or by alternative dispute resolution?
[Jo
B Location of trial
(no
Is there any reason why your claim needs to be heard at a particular court?
If Yes, say which court and why?
Given the quantum of the counterclaim and issues involved the matter should be transferred to the High
Court in London
C_Pre-action protocols
If an approved pre-action protocol applies to this claim, complete Part 1 only. If not, complete Part 2 only.
If you answer ‘No’ to question in either Part 1 or 2, please explain the reasons why on a separate sheet
and attach it to this questionnaire.
Part 1 The*I protocol applies to this claim.
‘please say
whic
protocol Have you complied with it? O Yes O No
Part 2 No pre-action protocol applies to this claim.
Have you exchanged information and/or documents (evidence) with the.
other party in order to assist in settling the claim? Yes CINo
N1SO Allocation questionnaire (10.01) 1 Laserform International 12/01
POL00083351
POL00083351
Case management information
What amount of the claim is in dispute? £ All of it
Have you made any application(s) in this claim? O ‘Yes No
If Yes, what for? For hearing on I
(e.g. summary judgment,
add another party)
So far as you know at this stage, what witnesses of fact do you intend to call at the trial or final hearing
including, if appropriate, yourself?
Witness name Witness to which facts
See attached Sheet
Experts)
Do you wish to use expert evidence at the trial or final hearing? Yes CJNo
Have you already copied any experts' report(s) to the None yet oO Yes O No
other party(ies)? obtained
Do you consider the case suitable for a single joint expert in any field? {x} Yes (Jno
Please list any single joint experts you propose to use and any other experts you wish to rely on. Identify
single joint experts with the initials 'SJ' after their name(s).
Expert's name Field of expertise (eg. orthopaedic surgeon, surveyor, engineer)
To be confirmed operation of the Claimant's computer system
Do you want your expert(s) to give evidence orally at the trial or final hearing? Yes O No
If Yes, give the reasons why you think oral evidence is necessary:
To explain the function of the computer system and its operation.
2 continue over
POL00083351
POL00083351
H_— Other information
Have }~u attached documents to this questionnaire?
Have you sent these documents to the other party(ies)?
If Yes, when did they receive them?
Do you intend to make any applications in the immediate future?
Lx] No
CJno
CO Yes
O Yes
oO Yes CIno
If Yes, what for?
In the space below, set out any other information you consider will help the judge to manage the claim.
GRO
POCORAN [Solicitor] [for the] PO [AMX] AXA [
RXR
[Claimant] OOQOGOKX] [
Signed.
]
I
I
I
7 September 2005
Date —
Please enter your firm's name, reference number and full postal address including (if appropriate) details
of DX, fax or e-mail
Bond Pearce LLP io if applicable
Ballard House f
West Hoe Road axno. I “ABR
Plymouth GRO
- DXno. I 8251_ Plymouth
Tel. noj_...GRO Postcode [ mut 3AE e-mail
Your reference no, “Bux BOws . oy
POL00083351
POL00083351
Which track do you consider is most suitable for your claim? —_Tick one box O small CJ fast J multi-
claims track track
track
If you have indicated a track which would not be the normal track for the claim, please give brief reasons
for your choice
Trial or final hearing
How long do you estimate the trial or final hearing will take? 3. days hours minutes
Are there any days when you, an expert or an essential witness will im Yes im No
not be able to attend court for the trial or final hearing?
If Yes, please give details
Name Dates not available
see attached sheet to be confirmed
Proposed directions (Parties should agree directions wherever possible)
Have you attached a list of the directions you think appropriate for the O Yes
management of the claim?
If Yes, have they been agreed with the other party(ies)? O Yes ix] No
Costs
Do not complete this section if you have suggested your case is suitable for the small claims track or you have
suggested one of the other tracks and you do not have a solicitor acting for you.
What is your estimate of your costs incurred to date? £2,000
What do you estimate your overall costs are likely to be? £20,000-30,000
In substantial cases these questions should be answered in compliance with CPR Part 43
Date: 6 September 2005
Your ref: DEG1/NJM1/348035.134
Of MDT. 113969
Please ask for:
Direct dial:
Direct fa:
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We enclose a copy of our client’s allocation questionnaire
Yours faithfully
ROWE COHEN
Enc
Cohen +, Rowe «DJ Horich= IN Levis «MA Hymattn + G.2 Smal» A Denison + 7: Cop #1 Dek «AF A Suc «AT
MMi « RJ Spoon “& Room = 8 Curwen * A}. Myer Dns Horn Ancestor LE Sering’ AD. Owens +S Soe“ M Mai” Gosoulet MT: Horwich <
ae CGAMARKTBBENCASTLETONO6905 LETH
POL00083351
POL00083351
ER TO.POND PEARCE
INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
{In the
Scarborough County Court
‘IClaim No. I 5 SZ 00651
:. ILast date for filing I 5 September 2005
'Lwith court office_
Please read the notes on page five before completing the questionnaire.
“= You should note the date by which it must be returned and the name of the court it should be
I returned to since this may be different from the court where the proceedings were issued.
* If you have settled this claim (or if you settle it on a future date) and do not need to have it heard
I} or tried, you must let the court know immediately.
er party(ies)?
a nn
":I Scarborough for the convenience of the Defendant.
.I However, given the issues in dispute and the potential quantum of the counterclaim, the Defendant believes that the matter
should be transferred to Scarborough District Registry of the High Court.
POL00083351
POL00083351
For hearing on
“2 (e.ge summary, \dgment,
add another party)
So far as you:
inchidin nah ‘appropriate, yoursel!?
Witness name Witness: to which facts
2... I Lee Castleton The running of Marine Drive Post Office
“I Lisa Castleton . " " "
: Christine Train " " " *
‘I The Defendant also intends to call a number of other current and former sub-postmasters who have experienced similar
difficulties with the Horizon computer system to those experienced by the Defendant.
Expert’s name Field of expertise (¢¢. orthopaedic surgeon, surveyor, engineer)
I Christopher Hine - Bentley Jenison Accountant
-I Depending on the substance of the Claimant's Reply to Defence and Counterclaim, the Defendant also envisages the potential
'Ineed for an expert to give evidence regarding the Horizon computer system, its operation and the scope for computer error giving I:
- Irise to apparent financial shortfalls. :
c tinue over tin
POL00083351
POL00083351
Potentially an application for specific disclosure - see attached copy correspondence
“ In the space below, set.out any
other information you consider will help the judge to: 2
‘The Defendant has since before proceedings were issued sought the return of documents removed by the Claimant when the
Defendant was suspended as sub-post master at Marine Drive Post Office. Some of those documents have been returned but I -
others remain outstanding. Certain of those documents, most crucially the daily snapshot reports generated at the end of each
day's business by the Defendant, are required to undertake a manual reconciliation of the cash account in order to substantiate
the Defendant's belief that the apparent losses claimed by the Claimant are in fact explicable and are not in fact real losses but
rather are attributable to computer error.
If these documents are not produced - and the Claimant does not appear to contest their relevance or disclosability - an
application for specific disclosure will be required.
Following disclosure of these documents, the Defendant will need to amend his statement of case in order to more fully
particularise both his Defence and his Counterclaim. The statement of case could not be pleaded more fully at the outset in the
absence of the disclosure sought from the Claimant which was not provided.
The Defendant also envisages that he will wish to adduce evidence from a number of other sub-postmasters who have found
themselves in dispute with the Claimant in similar circumstances. Time will be required to obtain statements from these
individuals, which process is likely to be time-consuming given that they are located around the country. Accordingly, the
enclosed Defendant's draft directions provide for a more elongated time table than might otherwise by ordered by the court more
usually,
The position regarding expert evidence should become clearer foliowing completion of disclosure. The Defendant would
respectfully suggest that detailed consideration of expert evidence issues, and the making of specific directions in that regard, be
held over to a case management conference to be convened following completion of disclosure and inspection.
Rowe Cohen
Quay House
Quay Street
Manchester
M3 3JE
Tel. no, Postcode
I Your reference no. MOT. HSN EA
POL00083351
POL00083351
; you will be giving
Experts 4
Oral’ or written ex}
“at the trial or final
. The judge will de
POL00083351
POL00083351
operation of the Horizon computer system, and the timing of service of expert accounting
evidence, be deferred to a further case management conference to be listed following
completion of disclosure.
DATED 5 September 2005
Served by Rowe Cohen of Quay House, Quay Street, Manchester M3 3JE (Ref: MDT.113969)
Solicitors for the Defendant
POL00083351
POL00083351
Claim No. 5 SZ 00651
IN THE SCARBOROUGH COUNTY COURT
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant
and
LEE CASTLETON
Defendant
DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED DIRECTIONS
1. The claim be allocated to the multi-track and transferred to Scarborough District Registry
of the High Court;
non
2. The Defendant shall be at liberty to serve a Reply to Defence to Counterclaim by 4pm on
19 September 2005;
3. Standard disclosure of documents by list to take place by 4pm on 30 September 2005,
with inspection of documents to take place by 14 October 2005; —
4. Witness statements to be mutually exchanged by 4pm by 10 February 2006;
5. The parties shall each have leave to call an expert accounting witness to deal with (a)
whether a manual reconciliation of the daily snapshot reports and other documents
produced by the Defendant in the court of running Marine Drive Post Office can explain
the apparent shortfalls claimed by the Claimant and (b) the quantum of the Defendant’s
counterclaim.
6. Further directions regarding expert evidence, including the question of whether the
parties shall have leave to adduce evidence from an expert witness dealing with the
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: cheryl.woodwar¢ GRO
06 September 2005 12:58°-~~
Denise Gammack
DEG1/LAF 1/348035.134 Marine Drive Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
Just to keep you up to date.
I have contacted several people to find the whereabouts of all Marine Drive paperwork. At the moment its not
clear who has it.
I have been told Mr Castleton had copies of all paperwork before it left the office?
Again I will let you know when I hear anything else.
Cheryl.
n 06/09/2005 11:53
~ Forwarded by Cheryl Woodward/
Cheryl Woodward
To: denise.gammack
26/08/2005 11:03 cc:
Subject: DEG1/LAF1/348035.134 Marine Drive Lee
Castleton
Hi Denise
I have finally received a response to the above and have been told to continue with the claim against Mr
Castleton. I am trying to locate the whereabouts of all the paperwork which was removed from Marine Drive Po. I
am on leave for 1wk after today and will get back to you on my return unless I have some further news before
2pm.
If you have any further queries next week please contact Paul Dann.
Thanks Cheryl
FES ISIE IORI I IOS OSI ISO IGE IS IOI ICE IOS IA IDI I IRI ADA AAA
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.
SEES IOS IGE ACES CISCO ORIG CEIE IOGEAR AACE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: cheryl.woodward:
Sent: 26 August 2005 12764"
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: DEG1/LAF1/348035.134 Marine Drive —_ Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
T have finally received a response to the above and have been told to continue with the claim against Mr
Castleton. I am trying to locate the whereabouts of all the paperwork which was removed from Marine Drive Po. I
am on leave for 1wk after today and will get back to you on my return unless I have some further news before
2pm.
If you have any further queries next week please contact Paul Dann.
Thanks Cheryl
JOSE SISSIES ISI OS IS II IOS SIS ISI KIOISOSIOE EOS ACSI BDCIOCI ISI ISRA AKI ORI IOI AGISI ACK A
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.
JO SSE ECBO ACOSO SISOS IS IIIA SADA AA AT I A I A AAI AA
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 17 August 2005
Your ref: DEG1/348035.134
Our ref MDT.113969
Pleas _k for:
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
RECEIVED
18 kus 2005
BOND PEARCE LP
PLYMOUTH
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for your letter of 16 August.
We confirm that a cheque for £1,300 was remitted to the court when filing the Defence and Counterclaim. We
can only assume that the incoming post had not yet been processed at the time when you spoke with the Court.
It is our experience that it can sometimes take a day or two for documents to be processed by the Court on
receipt.
In principle, we agree that the matter should probably be transferred to the High Court and that a joint
approach to the Court can be made. However, we see no obvious attraction in the matter being transferred to
London given the distance from our client.
A better solution would in our view be for the matter to be transferred to the nearest District Registry of the
High Court. It would appear from the Court Directory in the White Book (Vol 2 -- para 11-5 on page 2556)
that Scarborough has its own District Registry. If so, the most expedient way to proceed would simply be to
request a transfer from the County Court to the High Court.
We shall discuss this with our client and revert to you in due course.
Yours faithfull.
Sa at
G)MARKTABBEYICASTLETON(170805 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
Denise Gammack
POL00083351
POL00083351
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Denise
cheryl.woodward_
17 August 2005 10:20
Denise Gammack
Re: Lee Castleton
I've received Mr Castleton's defence this morning and passed it on.
I have said we need to respond quickly but how long it will take I cannot say but will update you as soon as I can.
Thanks Cheryl.
JES OE JSS IES IORI SSIES SIDI IDOI DIDI CRISIS IAI ARIA AI IKI AGIA A ITI AGIA RK AEA GE
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.
JESSE IE SSE ESO TSE EEE SEK IOI SIO SSC IES IORI IBAA IRIOIEACITI AREA AEA
POL00083351
POL00083351
bend. farce
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL 3AE
Fax mf GRO
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
To: Mark Turner Rowe Cohen Solicitors Fax:I
cc: Your ref: MDT.113969
From: Denise Gammack Our ref: DEG1/LAF1/348035.134
Date: 16 August 2005
Direct GRO
FAX! thenpogannrununeewrer
Number of pages:
Post Office Limited
Mr L Castleton - Ma
Our Client:
Your Clien'
e, Bridlington
Confidentiality n
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax Is cor may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
Fecipient, please do not use, disciose, copy SP lstrbute its contents instead, please notify the sender as Soon
as possible and destroy the fax.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership, Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430, is I 0 )
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol BS1 68). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Ast of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
4A_1051943_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
16 August 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PLi 3AE
By Fax!”
Rowe Cohen Solicitors
14352 MCR-1 ’
Direct "
Our ref:
DEGI/LAF1/348035.134
Your reft
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Your Client: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for your letter dated 15 August 2005 attaching your client’s Defence and counterclaim. We
note that the Counterclaim is limited to a figure not exceeding £250,000. Has your client paid the
appropriate court fee for this? We understand this to be £1,300. Please confirm.
We are not sure that the Scarborough County Court will have jurisdiction to continue to deal with this
Claim given the size of your client’s alleged Counterclaim. Unless the Court is prepared to make an Order
of its own volition we consider that a formal request should be made to transfer the matter to, say,
London. We did telephone the Court today to try to clarify the point but were told that as yet, they have
not received your client’s Defence and Counterclaim.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP, 2 Limited Labllty Partnership. Registered in England and Wales qumber OC311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
Ailt of members of Bond Pesrce fs open for inspection at the registered olfice, Regulated by the Law Socety. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1051935_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
16 August 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Cheryl Woodward
Agents Debt Team 3
First Floor East
1 Future Walk
Chesterfield
Our ref
S49 1PF DEG1/LAF1/348035.134
Your ref
Dear Cheryl
Lee Castleton
I refer to our telephone conversation of 16 August and attach a copy Defence and Counterclaim filed by Mr
Castleton’s solicitors.
If anyone has any specific comments to make about anything in the document please let me know as soon
as possible. I am sure that you will see that as far as they are concerned, Mr Castleton’s solicitors are of
the view that until they have received the disclosure they have requested they will simply deny everything
until any disclosed evidence proves otherwise.
I should be grateful if you could let me know the position in respect of disclosure as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
Enclosures
1. Defence & Counterclaim
Bond Pearce LLP, 9 Limited Liablty Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number OC311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House ‘edcliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
AaB members of Bond bestce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Soctety www. bondpearce.com
4A_1051923_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 15 August 2005
Your ref: DEG1/NJM1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Pleas _k for: Mark Turner
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
Solicitors.
GRO
By Fax and DX
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton —- Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We enclose by way of service our client’s Defence and Counterclaim. Please acknowledge receipt.
Given that your client has not been able or willing to deal with our requests in relation to pre-action
disclosure, the statement of case has had to be pleaded in outline. We shall amend it to more fully particularise
our client’s Defence and his Counterclaim against your client following completion of disclosure.
Yours faithfully
“GRO I
ROWE COHEN"
Enc
Quay House » Quay Street + Manchester 3 2
DX 14352 MCR-} + Email awadh
Partners: SIE, Cohen * 1, Rowe * D MX. Hymanson + cgi «JX. Duck « A. Parley «A, Sacks # A. ‘Tylor
M.CMoodali «RY. Sproston « S. Room + A Curwen © RJ. Myer» D.Vayro « H. Burns Assoclates: I.F Swerling » AD. Owens + S.F Sutton » M. Molloy Conmattants NT. Horwich
Ss wt
GAMARKT\ABBEYICASTLETON\150805 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
Also at London INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
ROWECOHEN
POL00083351
POL00083351
wuus
I
QUAY HOUSE, QUAY STREET,
Telephone No: :
Fax No's:-
Claimant Dept: I
Defendant Dept, I
Commercial Dept.
Conveyancing Dept:
e-mail: 1
website: {
Fax
MANCHESTER. M3 3JE (DX 14352 MCR-1)
ROWE COHEN
SOLICITORS
To: Denise Gammack - Bond Pearce From: Mark Tumer
Fax: Pages:
Phone: Date: 15/08/05
Ret The Post Oice/Lee Castleton ce:
CO Urgent 0 Fer Review
0 Please Comment
O Please Reply
Please Recycle
I
15-AUG-2885
b4
P.@1
POL00083351
POL00083351
15/08 °05 15:26 FAX ROWECOHEN: @oo2
Date: 15 August 2005 ;
Yo ef: DEGI/NJM1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969 I
Please ask for: Mark Tamer. nnnnnny
Direct dial: i '
"ail:
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
. By Fax and DX
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited I
We enclose by way of service our client’s Defence and Counterclaim. Please acknowledge receipt.
Given that your client has not been able or willing to deal with our requests in relation to pre-action
disclosure, the statement of case has had to be pleaded in outline. We shall amend it to more fully particularise
our client's Defence and his Counterclaim against your client following completion of disclosure.
Yours faithfully
Ene
Bowe + Bj Hilf a Lena « MY Mymneen «G3 Sl «A Danan +B: Cohn “2N Deck «A Bly «A Soke ~ Ar oy
MCMeeda = RU Sorgian =X Hoom + A Caren 2). Myer =. vepe” Hi, Butnn Accocates, LE Sueting = AD. Quen» Sr Suton 1M Maloy Coaeultent: MT, Harsh < }
CConeanacraBeeMicASTLETOM sou LETTER TOON reaRce
‘Neo stondon Nipuion MORE
AS-AUG-2205 15:25 8161 8347382 Sax P.@2
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Denise Gammack Location: N/A Date: 15 August 2005
Start time: Units:
DEG engaged in considering the defence from Roe Cohen Solicitors. Noting they are making
a counterclaim of anything up to £250,000 and resolving to ask them to confirm whether
they have paid the relevant fee for this, £1300, according to the new fees rules.
Units: 2
DEG
4A_1051508_1
Denise Gammack
POL00083351
POL00083351
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Denise
cheryl.woodwardi-”
10 August 2005 11:10
Denise Gammack
Re: Lee Castleton
I still have not received a response from higher Management to date. I've asked Paul to chase them again and will
get back to you as soon as I hear anything.
Sorry Cheryl.
JESS III USO ISIC IIA ACRE AIS SEI SII OIEIBI DIDI DISIGIEA AACA CAA EAA I AC ACA KA
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.
JE SSO RS IBS S OS OO SEO E I OREO ES ISI IORI OGRA AAAI AAI AAI IACI AICI AACA
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
De-ise Gammack
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 10 August 2005 10:40
To: ‘cheryl. woodwar¢ __
Subject: Lee Castleton
Dear Cheryl,
Thank for the email that I received this morning.
Yesterday we received a telephone call from Mr Castleton's solicitors asking whether we had
any more documents to disclose which would assist with his client's defence, otherwise he
would only file one in short form pending further disclosure. As I have nothing else to give him
at this stage he is going to file a short form of defence and I am sure that I can tell you what it
will say (i.e. there were problems with Horizon and further full disclosure awaited).
I look forward to hearing further from you once higher management have considered the
position and formulated instructions for me.
Regards
Denise Gammack
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
Bond Pearce LLP
10/08/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Work chit
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Denise Gammack Location: N/A Date: 10 August 2005
Start time: Units:
DEG considering an incoming update e-mail from Sheryl Woodward at Royal Mail.
1 unit
DEG then typing and sending her a reply.
1 unit
DEG
1A_1049401_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: cheryl.woodwar
Sent: 04 August 2005 15:09
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
Thanks for the letter from Mr Castleton's Solicitor. I have passed this on hoping to hurry things along.
Paul Dann my Manager has also passed it on to his manager and we have our fingers crossed.
Sorry Cheryl.
JSC OSOSEIO DISD IOS IORI OSE IOI IRE TOC ISIS A DOIACA DA IODA AIA AAI A AAA AAA
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.
JOOS IE SOB OS BOR OCO ORI ORE ROS ORO IESG ER CICK OER CICK AIK
POL00083351
POL00083351
3 August 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
DEG1/NJM1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our client: Post Office Limited
Your client: Mr L Castleton
Thank you for your letter dated 26 July 2005.
We note your comments in respect of specific disclosure. Our client is neither unable nor unwilling to
address this point, rather they are in fact making every attempt to try to locate the documents you have
requested. The nature of the defence that you plead is entirely a matter for you and the issue of
disclosure will be dealt with when our client can confirm it has completed all its investigations in that
respect.
Our client is fully aware of all its duties in relation to its ongoing duty of disclosure in relation to all the
issues in this claim. We have passed your comments about disclosure in relation to the Horizon Computer
System to our clients.
We shall revert to you again once we have received further instructions from our client.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redaiff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Allist of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society, www.bondpearce.com
1A_1046748_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
N la McSherry
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 03 August 2005 16:48
To: ‘cheryl.woodwar«
Subject: Lee Castleton
Attachments: Scanned document <2 pages ~151 KB> -- 03/08/2005 16:29:28; LETTER_1046748.DOC.
Dear Cheryl
Thank you for your email earlier today confirming that there is no change in the current
Position.
For your information I attach to this email a copy of the last letter I received from Mr
Castleton's solicitors, Rowe Cohen, dated 26 July 2005. I also attach a copy of the reply I sent
them today. You will see that Rowe Cohen are continuing to make their points in respect of
disclosure and its potential effects on Mr Castleton's defence abundantly clear and are also
referring to costs that will be incurred in amending their defence if they have to file that before
the disclosure they have requested takes place.
l appreciate that you yourself are awaiting responses from your manager and also his manager
after that, but there is only going to be a certain number of times that I can tell Rowe Cohen I
am waiting for instructions on disclosure before they decide to take more persuasive action,
perhaps in the form of an application for costs. Please keep me informed with how
investigations into the disclosure are proceeding at your end. As I explained earlier, if a
decision is made to discontinue this claim, there will be a costs liability to Mr Castleton in
respect of the fees incurred by Rowe Cohen to date.
Please feel free to contact me to discuss anything arising from this email. Otherwise I look
forward to hearing further from you in respect of disclosure,
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
03/08/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: cheryl.woodward,
Sent: 03 August 2005 14:50
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
Had no luck receiving any further information today. Will try again tomorrow. Sorry!
Cheryl
FEBS I SEI EAE OBESE OOS CI IES IESE OKIE KICISIODIGI AK ACAI IAI ACA GK ACAI A
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.
TESS B SESS SOE ROR IDERI ARH BES DODO OOD ICICI AGIA ADI AA AAA OR A
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page I of 1
De ‘se Gammack
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 03 August 2005 09:14
To: Sarah Bramall
Subject: royal mail
do you have a telephone number for chery! woodward at royal mail? I already have her email
address but not a phone number, if not just say, thanks
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
03/08/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page lof 1
De ‘se Gammack
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 29 July 2005 14:4!
To: ‘cheryl.woodwi
Subject: Lee Castleton
Dear Cheryl,
I hope you had a nice time on leave,
While you have been away I have received further correspondence from Mr Castleton's
solicitors. I should be grateful if you would telephone me on as soon as
possible so that we can discuss the progression of this matter.
In particular I will need to know whether we have located the documents that they are
requesting, namely those previously removed from the sub-post office after the investigation.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible,
Denise Gammack
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
Bond
DDI
Main
lupearce. corn”
29/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
bund. leance
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Fax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
To: Denise Gammack BP
cc: Your ref:
From: Laura Branton Our ref: LRB1/348035.134
Date : 26 July 2005
Fax: +) GRO : Time:
Number of pages: URGENT
Post Office Ltd v Lee Castleton
Hi Denise,
Please find attached a letter received from the Defendant's Solicitors.
Many thanks
Confidentiati
ry notice ¢
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended \ L H /
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents. Instead, please notify the sender as soon \ Oo
as possible and destroy the fax.
ond Pearce LLP, a Limited Lilt Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number OC331430.
Registered Stee: Bristol Bridge Nduse 38-14% Radel Street Bristol Bau 6B, VAT nursber GB143 0282 07.
Ri of Members is avaliable Yorn our registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 26 July 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134 ;
Our-ef: MDT.113969
Ple. ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
By DX and Fax
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your letter of 14 July.
You have no reason to believe that we no longer act for our client. No Notice of Change of Solicitor has been
served. Accordingly, we see no reason why you do not simply address any remarks arising from our client’s
approach to an employee of your client to us directly.
For the complete avoidance of doubt, the mere fact that someone is an employee of your client does not place
them “off limits” to either us or our client in terms of soliciting evidence from them. You will of course
appreciate that there is no property in a witness. However, if your client’s employees wish to respond via you,
we are quite happy for you to convey their comments to us.
When might we expect a response to our letter of 7 June regarding specific disclosure? We raised this issue
with you at the very outset of this matter and yet you have still failed to produce the documents which we
have requested. The extension of time for service of the Defence was specifically intended to allow you time
to address our request and for the documents to be provided in good time for them to be considered in advance
of a Defence being settled.
The Defence is due by 15 August. This date is now rapidly approaching. It is imperative that we now hear
substantively from you by return. If your client is unable or unwilling to address the points raised, we shall
have no alternative but to plead a short-form Defence and to reserve the right to re-plead it in more detail in
due course as and when the documents in question have to be disclosed as part of the usual disclosure process.
We place you on notice now that we shall look to your client to meet the costs of and occasioned by such
amendments on the basis that they are necessary solely as a result of your client’s failure to comply with the
overriding objective and to exchange information and documentation before the issue of proceedings.
We further place you on notice that we shall expect your client to disclose any internal documents in its
possession or control which relate to existing problems with the Horizon computer system raised by other sub-
postmasters.
Our client is aware that your client is pursuing a number of other postmasters in circumstances similar to that
of this case, namely where there are apparent shortfalls in takings but where the postmaster in question is
adamant that the computer system is at fault. We are also aware that there are cases similar to this where your
client has proceeded towards trial only to settle late on in the proceedings, having to pay compensation to the
postmasters in questions together with their legal costs.
House, ¢ Quay Street + Mancheste> M3 3)E « Tel 4
"I Webs
owe « Me Hy 4 *
Mcieadal © Rj. syoston © 3. Room © 8 Cowen « Rj Myer" Daye H, Boros Amocates: LE Sweting » MD. Oveos SB Seton M, olloy Conetieat MT. Horwich ‘q 5
Sat
Also GAMARKT\ABBEVICASTLETON260705 LETTER TQAONDS PEARCE
Also at London
ate the La Se
POL00083351
POL00083351
Further, our client has been informed that your client is already aware that there have been previous instances
whe the Horizon system has been shown to be susceptible to external influences (such as, for instance,
sub. variations in electricity supply, or the effect of passing trains) leading to apparent errors when the
balancing process takes place.
The key to our client’s Defence to this claim will be that the computer system is at fault rather than any
negligence on his part. That being the case, it is self-evident that any documents falling into this category must
be relevant and therefore must be disclosed. If they not disclosed, we shall pursue the appropriate application
(which will also address any issues raised in our previous correspondence dealing with disclosure which have
not been resolved by that point).
We would invite you to confirm to us as a matter of urgency:
(a) when you will be able to respond substantively to our letter of 7 June and to provide the documents
requested;
(b) that you accept that documents relating to other claims where faults have been either found to exist in the
Horizon system, or where a postmaster has raised the assertion that faults are to blame, will be disclosed
in due course; and
(c) depending on your response to (a) above, whether you are prepared to make a joint approach to the court
regarding a further extension of time or whether we shall have no alternative but to serve an abbreviated
Defence which will be more fully particularised following disclosure.
We look forward to hearing from you.
GAMARKT\ABBEVICASTLETON\260705 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE,
POL00083351
POL00083351
26-TUL-2885 16:27 FROM BOND PEARCE PLYMOUTH P.Qt
Bard france
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Piymouth PL1 3AE
Fax
If any of this fax Is missing or ilegible
please telephone the number deiow
To: Denise Gammack ap Faxi
ce: Your rei
From: Laura Branton ‘Our ref: (RB1/348035. 134
Date : 26 July 2005
Time:
Number of pages: URGENT
Post Office Ltd v Lee Castieton
Hi Denise,
Please find attached a letter received from the Defendant's Solicitors.
Many thanks
a
“GRO
Sarah
Confidentiality notice Co
IMPORTANT = The information in this fax is confidential and may De legally grivilegrd. If you are not the :ntendea . I
reclplens, olcase da not use, disclose, cooy or vistribute ts contents, Instead, please ratify the sender ax saan On
35 possible and cestray the fox
Bond Pearce Lip. a Linvted Usblity Parenership. Registered in England and Weles number OC3:3430.
Repistared office: Bristol bridge House 128-142 Rediff Steet sristsl GS 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
Aer at Members tc avaliable trom our regictered office, Regulated by the Law Society. wwew.bondpaarce.com
26-JUL-2885 16:26 35% P.GL
26-2885,
26-JUL-2885 16:26
FROM BOND PEARCE PLYMOUTH TO;
Telephone No:
Fax Noe
Clatmant Depe
Defendant Bept I
Cammercial Oept;
Conveyancing Dape !
exmall;
Yo: _Laura Branton - Bond Pearce From: Mark Turner
POL00083351
POL00083351
P.@2
I Pages: 3
Date: 26/07/08
Re: ‘The PostOffica/Lwa Casiieton cc:
XUrgent OForReview OPiease Comment O Please Reply 0 Piease Recycle
P.@2
POL00083351
POL00083351
26-JuL-2085 16:27 FROM BOND PEARCE PLYMOUTH P83
Date: 26 July 2005 el
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134 \
ur ref: MDT.113969 a
vlease ade for: Mark Tumer i
Direct dial: i : I
Direct fax : G RO crelyort 7
E-mail:
By DX and Fax
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton ~ Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your lerter of 14 July.
‘You have no reason to believe that we no longer act for our client, No Notice of Change of Solicitor has been
served. Accordingly, we see no reason why you do not simply address any remarks arising from our client's
approach to an employee of your client to us directly.
For the complete avoidance of doubt, the mere fact that someone ig an employee of your client does not place .
them “off limits” to cither us or our client in terms of soliciting evidence ffam them. You will of course :
appreciate that there is no property in a witness. However, if your client's eruployees wish to respond via you,
we are quite happy for you to convey their comments to us.
When tight we expect a response to our letter of 7 June regarding specific disclosure? We raised this issue
with you at the very outset of this matter and yet you have still failed to produce the documents which we
have requested. The extension of time for service of the Defence was specifically intended to allow yoy time
to address our request and for the documents to be provided in good time for them to be considered in advance
of a Defence being settled.
The Defence is due by 15 August. This date is now rapidly approaching, It is imperative that we now heer
substantively from you by retum. If your client is unable or unwilling to address the paints raised, we shall
have no altemative but to plead a short-form Defence and to reserve the right to re-plead it in more detail in
dne course as and when the documents in question have to be disclosed as part of the usual disclosure process.
‘We place you on notice now that we shall look to your client to meet the costs of and ocoasioned by such
amendments on the basis that they are necessary solely as a result of your client’s failure to comply with the
overriding objective and to exchange information and documentation before the issue of proceedings.
‘We further place you on notice that we shall expect your clieat to disclose any internal documents in its
possession or contro] which relate to existing problems with the Horizon computer system raised by other sub-
postmasters.
Our client is aware that your client is pursuing a number of other postmasters in circumstances similar to that
of this case, namely where there are apparent shortfalls in takings but where the postmaster in question is
adamant that the computer system is at fault, We are also aware that there are cases similar to this where your
client has proceeded towards trial only to settle late on in the proceedings, having to pay compensation to the
postmasters in questions together with their legel costs.
Oi en MR GES Abn“ apn Dra et aT
eee efae Sees hs tece nnoonae towne ht ova A Sees ley Som HM C
Cau ABST ARR CATISTOMOON TARDE AACS
TOTAL P.@2
35x P.@3
26/07 '05 11:02 FAX! GRO I ROWECOHEN
QUAY HOUSE, Quay STREET, MANCHESTER. M3 NE (DX 14352 MCR-1)
Telephone No:
Fax No'si«
Claimant Dept:
Defendant Dept;
Commercial Dept; I
Conveyancing Dept !
e-mail;
website:
Fax
POL00083351
POL00083351
Moor
ROWE COHEN
Souséirons
‘To: Laura Branton - Bond Pearce From: Mark Tuer
Fax: Pages: 3
Phone: i Date: 2607/05
Re: The powtonicalee Castleton CG:
X Urgent OForReview (1 Please Comment
O Please Reply O Please Recycle
POL00083351
POL00083351
ROWECOHEN . @oo2
26/07 ‘05 11:02 Fax!
Date: 26 July 2005 :
~ ref: TRB1/348035.134 I
Cue refi MDT.113969 io
Please ask for:
Direct dial:
Direct fax : fovE cours
E-mail:
Bond Pearce I
By DX and Fax
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton ~ Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to your letter of 14 July.
‘You have no reason to believe that we no longer act for our client. No Notice of Change of Solicitor has been
served. Accordingly, we sce no reason why you do not sitply address any remarks arising from our client’s
approach to an employee of your client to us directly.
For the complete avoidance of doubt, the mere fact that someone is an employee of your client does not place x
them “off limits” 6 either us or ovr client in terms of soliciting evidence from them. You will of course
appreciate that there is no property in a witness. However, if your client’s employees wish to respond via you,
we are quite happy for you to convey their comments to us.
When might we expect a response to our letter of 7 June regarding specific disclosure? We raised this issue
with you at the very outset of this matter and yet you have still failed to produce the documents which we
have requested. The extension of time for service of the Defence was specifically intended to allow you time
to address our request and for the documents to be provided in good time for them to be considered in advance
of a Defence being settled.
The Defence is due by 15 August. This date is now rapidly approaching. It is imperative that we now hear
substantively from you by return. If your client is unable or unwilling to address the points raised, we shall .
have no alternative but to plead a short-form Defence and to reserve the right to re-plead it in more detail in
due course as and when the documents in question have to be disclosed as part of the usual disclosure process.
We place you on notice now that we shall look to your client to meet the costs of and occasioned by such
amendments on the basis that they are necessary solely as a result of your client’s failure to comply with the
overriding objective and to exchange information and documentation before the issue of proceedings.
We further place you on notice that we shall expect your client to disclose any internal documents in its
possession or control which relate to existing problems with the Horizon computer system raised by other sub-
postmasters.
Our client is aware that your client is pursuing a number of other postmasters in circumstances similar to that
of this case, namely where there are apparent shortfalls in takings but where the postmaster in question is
adamant that the computer system is at fault. We are also aware that there are cases similar to this where your
client has proceeded towards trial only to settle late on in the proceedings, having to pay compensation to the
postmasters in questions together with their legal costs.
igs © AD. Omen © AF Sutton » M, Mey Consultants MT: Herne
ens MO Hpmton « GE Smal = A Decien° BT Coghlan» LD le A i A Thr QO
G.MARKTUWBREVICASTLETOM2S0 705, BET FO OND PEARCE
POL00083351
POL00083351
26/07 ‘05 11:02 FAXxi GRO t ROWECOHEN @oos
© er, our client has been informed that your client is already aware that there have been previous instances
where the Horizon system has been shown to be susceptible to external influences (such as, for instance,
subtle variations in electricity supply, or the effect of passing trains) leading to apparent errors when the
balancing process takes place.
The key to our client’S Defence to this claim will be that the computer system is at fault rather than any
negligence on his part. That being the case, it is self-evident that any documents falling into this category must
be relevant and therefore must be disclosed. If they not disclosed, we shall pursue the appropriate application
(which will also address any issues raised in our previous correspondence dealing with disclosure which have
not been resolved by that point).
We would invite you ‘9 confirm to us as a matter of urgency:
(a) when you will bel able to respond substantively to our letter of 7 June and to provide the documents
requested; i
(®) that you accept that documents relating to other claims where faults have been either found to exist in the
Horizon system, or where a postmaster has raised the assertion that faults are to blame, will be disclosed
in due course; and:
(c) depending on yout response to (a) above, whether you are prepared to make a joint approach to the court
regarding a further extension of time or whether we shall have no alternative but to serve an abbreviated
Defence which will be more fully particularised following disclosure.
We look forward to péaring from you.
Kurs faithfully
i: GRO I
“ROWE COHEN
GAMARICTABBEVICASTLETONiON1S LETTER TO HOND PEARCE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: cheryl.woodwart ..,...
Sent: 15 July 2005 13:26
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Cheryl Woodward/e/POSTOFFICE is out of the office.
I will be out of the office starting 15/07/2005 and will not return until 01/08/2005.
I will be out of the office from 2pm 15.07.05 and will return on 01.08.05.
Please contact Martyn Mitchell, Andy Pearson or Pat Davies with anything urgent. Thank You.
Jed ESI IGE A IEE OIOnS Indo Ino ISEo RS nE IES IRIE IKI III III AGI HEA SI I ACA HEH OK
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.
JOSE ROBO ESCO IE IES OR OR ORES IE SORIA ICI IAAI OHA AAAI
Denise Gammack
POL00083351
POL00083351
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Denise
“GRO
cheryl.woodward
15 July 2005 12:17
Denise Gammack
Re: Lee Castleton
I still have had no joy retrieving Mr Castletons file. I have made Paul aware you are awaiting our reply.
Iam on leave for the next two weeks and if I still haven't heard anything before I leave I will tell Paul to contact
you himself and if you have any problem with this case Paul Dann should be able to help.
Thanks Cheryl.
JIE SOO SE EOS O IE IOGEAR SI ACSKIEI CIE ISO EIOK ISI IISA ACK AA ACA CAO
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.
JOBE ROSSER ODO IEICE IB OR CORO EE ISAAK IOI ICA AIO IOI IA AIO A
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: cheryl.woodwar¢
Sent: 14 July 2005 11:
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
Paul and I are chasing the file, unfortunately Jennifer is always tied up.
Paul is going to see what she has to say when she's available today.
Will respond as soon as I know what 's happening.
Sorry Cheryl.
JESSIE SEIS IO ICSE IC I IEIISSIOCICEIOS IDS ISI CII ICIS SIE ARIACII ARI ACAI ASK ASIA A
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.
JOE GC EOS OBI CIEE OKOKO IS OE ROC OR ORE CE IE IID GK ADK ATI OSI OAC IC ISK ACA ICA aA OK A
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 14 July 2005,11:24.
To: andy. bayfielc
Cec: Denise Gammack
Subject: RE: Response to flagcase KJG 141/05 Mr Lee Castleton
Dear Andy
Further to the e-mail below, ple:
Her e-mail address i
absence but I thought I should let you know tha’
August 2005.
ague Denise Gammack is now actually dealing with this file.
_I, Tam very willing to assist with queries in Denise's
be on annual leave from Thursday 21st July to Friday 5th
Denise will be contacting you separately in connection with this matter.
Kind regards.
none Original Message-
From: andy.bayfielé,
Sent: 14 July 2005 10:23
To: alan.rodger™
Ce: Laura Brantori
Subject: Response to flagcase KJG 141/05 Mr Lee Castleton
Alan
can you please send out today
(See attached file: Mr L Castleton response 2 14.7.2005.doc)
Katy
this matter is currently in the hands of our solicitors so any further correspondence received in this matter must.
be dealt with by them, via Laura Branton at Bond Pearce solicitors ( via their Plymouth branch )
Andy
Area Service Manager Scotland & North England Post Office Ltd Operations
Area Office Cumbernauld
5-7 Clyde walk
Cumbernauld
G67 1BN
Postline: LIW, STD Phone: I
2, Mobex:! GRO I Mobile:{
JOSS SIRI I EIEIO IRI ORI OIE ESB ORES OREO SOROS OIE SIRI CI ASIOK IS ISI IAA ARK
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.
JERSE OEE ESE TEE IOS OSE SIOC AE OEIC EKA EI ORK AGIOS AGAR AEA AK AEA
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 14 July 2005 11:04
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: FW: Response to flagcase KJG 141/05 Mr Lee Castleton
Attachments: Mr L Castleton response 2 14.7.2005.doc
Mr L Castleton
response 2 14.7...
Hi D, for your file. Would you rather update Andy to confirm that you are point of contact in view
of my imminent holiday? (:-D)
cores Original Messag:
From: andy.bayfiel¢
Sent: 14 July 2005 ‘IU:
To: alan.rodger
Cc: Laura Brant6ii
Subject: Response to flagcase KIJG 141/05 Mr Lee Castleton
Alan
can you please send out today
(See attached file: Mr L Castleton response 2 14.7.2005.doc)
Katy
this matter is currently in the hands of our solicitors so any further correspondence received in this matter must
be dealt with by them, via Laura Branton at Bond Pearce solicitors ( via their Plymouth branch )
Andy
Area Service Manager Scotland & North England Post Office Ltd Operations
Area Office Cumbernauld
5-7 Clyde walk
Cumbernauld
G67 1BN
} VoiceMail:
FESO IORI ISIS IS IEICE IOS OCI OSI OBOE SIORI SS ISI OKA RII ASIII ACK A AEA AR
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.
JSS OIG IEICE OR ICSC ESI SS IORI IEIORTI ECORI TIEIOI IAI II COCA AAAI ACA
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 14 July 2005 11:01
To: ‘cheryl.woodwaré”
Subject: RE: Lee Castletofi
Thanks Cheryl. Look forward to hearing from you again soon.
Denise
eet Original Message---;
From: cheryl.woodward¢
Sent: 14 July 2005 11:26°°-7—~
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
Paul and I are chasing the file, unfortunately Jennifer is always tied up.
Paul is going to see what she has to say when she's available today.
Will respond as soon as I know what 's happening.
Sorry Cheryl.
JESSIE ISI IOI IIE ORISA E OIE ISOC SCE IE AE SOKIO DIE IDIORIOKIOI ICI IDI ODIO AGK AI AAA
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.
FOSS IE ISOS I ICIS CODE ODOC ODOC CORI IRI ASE ISI IRIORI CIO IEI OI RTA ATI AAA AK
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 2
Mobile
www.bondpearce.co:
14/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
D’ ‘se Gammack
From: Julia Lewis
Sent: 14 July 2005 10:28
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Message
Giles Bingley has just rung - please could you confirm that you have received the documents
and that they are on their way to Bristol, and that you are still in line for a Court hearing in
August.
14/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 14 July 2005 09:25
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: FW: Letter to Mr Lee Castleton re pending civil court case
Attachments: Mr Lee Castleton Marine Parade 14.7.2005.doc
Mr Lee Castleton
Marine Parade...
Previous e-mail refers. Thanks D :-)
ae Original Message-.
From: andy.bayfield...
Sent: 13 July 2005 18:27
To: Laura Branton
Subject: Letter to Mr Lee Castleton re pending civil court case
Laura
thanks for advice earlier today, please see attached and feel free to make any amendments that you believe are
proper
(See attached file: Mr Lee Castleton Marine Parade 14.7.2005.doc)
Andy
Area Service Manager Scotland & North England Post Office Ltd Operations
Area Office Cumbernauld
5-7 Clyde walk
Cumbernauld
G67 1BN
} VoiceMail +
Email GRO es
Postline: LIW, STD Phone
C ‘Mobex:
JERS GEO GSI CEI SISSIES IASI I ISI OI ICSI SIS ISSO IR OKIORI AICI IIR AAA IK AOA
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.
JE ORS O BESS B ABSORB ORGS ASI IO RATA AAA ADEA IDEA AI AAA
Confidential
Mr Lee Castleton
14 South Marine Drive
Bridlington
EAST YORKSHIRE
YO15 3DB
14 July 2005
Dear Mr Castleton
Re: Letter sent to Mr D Smith
4 July 2005
Thank you for your letter to Mr Smith, asking him to give
evidence at your forthcoming civil case against Post Office
Ltd, as the senior manager within Post Office Ltd responsible
for Contractual and Service issues I have been asked to
respond to your letter.
Mr Smith will not be attending to give evidence. Following our
investigations into the allegations you made with regard to
the Horizon system making false entries resulting in losses
occurring in your branch cash accounts.
We were unable to find any evidence to support your
allegations. These errors that you insisted occurred where
not replicated by any of the temporary postmasters who have
been operating exactly the same computer hardware and
software that you did at Marine Parade Post Office® branch.
You were invited to attend an interview to give full details of
what you believe happened, at that interview and subsequent
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 o0f3
appeal hearing you could not offer any reasonable
explanation for the large cash losses occurring in your
branch, you had also consistently declined to accept the
advice that had been offered to you by the Retail Line team
responsible for service operations at your branch.
I am sorry you feel you have been treated in a disgusting
manner by Post Office Ltd. It is our affirmed intention to treat
all our agents and staff with both respect and dignity at all
times.
I have fully reviewed this case and cannot see what else we
could have done. Following our investigations there were
many issues that gave us cause for serious concern with
regard to the safety and security of our assets, as a
consequence of these concerns we subsequently terminated
your contract to offer Post Office services on our behalf.
You exercised your right to appeal against this decision, it
was heard by an independent appeals manager who upheld
our original decision.
I believe that we have treated you fairly and in accordance
with both our contractual obligations and our operating code
of practice.
Yours sincerely
Mr Andy Bayfield
Area Service Manager
Post Office Ltd
Area Intervention Office
Cumbernauld
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 3 of 3
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 2
De ‘se Gammack
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 14 July 2005 09:26
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: RE: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Yes, Mr C contacted him direct. Andy has e-mailed the letter and I will forward to you under
separate cover.
Cheers, L
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 14 July 2005 08:35
To: Laura Branton
Subject: RE: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Is he saying he has been contacted direct by Mr Castleton and not Mr Castleton's solicitors?
Now that proceedings have been issued we need to avoid dealing with him direct (I think his
solicitor may still be on honeymoon at the moment).
I'll ring Andy this morning but when you get his email send it to me anyway.
thanks
D
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 13 July 2005 16:10
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: FW: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Hi Denise
Further to the e-mail below, Andy called back again because he wanted to deal with this matter
urgently. He's advised Mr C has contacted him and asked for him to be a witness in connection
with the Horizon system. Mr C stating he didn't want to send anything which would damage
our case and I suggested that he should e-mail his proposed response to me so that I could ask
you to check it. Hope that's OK.
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 13 July 2005 15:20
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Dear Denise
Andy Bayfield at PO has called f “GRO and is dealing with other matters relating to Mr
C (he didn't specify but I assuntre-re-wounerwe-ernd investigation side of things?)
He's asked that you call to provide him with an update on this matter.
Many thanks, Laura.
14/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 2
Laur Sranton
Para._yal Supervisor
Bond Paareattn.
14/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
De “se Gammack
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 14 July 2005 09:
To: ‘cheryl.woodwar<
Subject: Lee Castleton
Dear Cheryl,
I should be grateful if you would let me know what is happening at your end in relation to this
file. Has Paul had a response yet at his end?
I am not sure exactly what enquiries are being made at your end but if they relate to locating
the papers that Mr Castleton has been chasing perhaps you could confirm how that is going.
If there is anything that I can do to help please let me know.
Regards
Denise
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
Bond
DDI —
Main office phone:
14/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
Dr ‘se Gammack
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 13 July 2005 15:20
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Dear Denise
Andy Bayfield at PO has called! and is dealing with other matters relating to Mr
C (he didn't specify but I assume it could be the investigation side of things?)
He's asked that you call to provide him with an update on this matter.
Many thanks, Laura.
Laura Branton
Paralegal Supervisor
Bond Pearce.LLP.
DDI: 4.
Main Office phon
: GRO
Www. vorrapearte:conr
14/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
De ‘se Gammack
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 13 July 2005 16:10
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: FW: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Hi Denise
Further to the e-mail below, Andy called back again because he wanted to deal with this matter
urgently. He's advised Mr C has contacted him and asked for him to be a witness in connection
with the Horizon system. Mr C stating he didn't want to send anything which would damage
our case and I suggested that he should e-mail his proposed response to me so that I could ask
you to check it. Hope that's OK.
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 13 July 2005 15:20
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Dear Denise
C (he didn't specify but I assume it could be the investigation side of things?)
He's asked that you call to provide him with an update on this matter.
Many thanks, Laura.
Laura Branton
Paralegal Supervisor
Bond, Pearce LLP...
GRO
14/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
De ‘se Gammack
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 14 July 2005 08:35
To: Laura Branton
Subject: RE: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Is he saying he has been contacted direct by Mr Castleton and not Mr Castleton's solicitors?
Now that proceedings have been issued we need to avoid dealing with him direct (I think his
solicitor may still be on honeymoon at the moment).
T'll ring Andy this morning but when you get his email send it to me anyway.
thanks
D
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 13 July 2005 16:10
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: FW: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Hi Denise
Further to the e-mail below, Andy called back again because he wanted to deal with this matter
urgently. He's advised Mr C has contacted him and asked for him to be a witness in connection
with the Horizon system. Mr C stating he didn't want to send anything which would damage
our case and I suggested that he should e-mail his proposed response to me so that I could ask
you to check it. Hope that's OK.
From: Laura Branton
Sent: 13 July 2005 15:20
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (348035.134)
Dear Denise
Andy Bayfield at PO has called and is dealing with other matters relating to Mr
C (he didn't specify but I assume it could be the investigation side of things?)
He's asked that you call to provide him with an update on this matter.
Many thanks, Laura.
Laura Branton
Paralegal Supervisor
Bond Pearce LLP
14/07/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
4 July 2005... + Bond Pearce LLP
H H Ballard House
By Faxi_____.GRO_____ Post
West Hoe Road
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Our ref:
DEG1/SIR2/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
We refer to our previous correspondence dated 4 July 2005.
We are aware that your fee-earner directly dealing with this matter is out of the office until 21 July 2005.
In the meantime we have been contacted by our client who informs us that your client has been
contacting them direct in relation to potential witness evidence.
In accordance with the terms of Principle 19.02 of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors we
shall not respond to your client direct, unless you can confirm that you are no longer instructed by your
client in this matter.
We look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Labllty Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number C314
Regiterad office: Bristol Srdge House 196-141 Redellt Street Briol Bel. eB), VAT mumiver Gbi4s 6282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1037405_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
4 July 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
By DX Only West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors...
“GRO
Our ref:
DEGI/LIP1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
Thank you for your correspondence dated 22 June 2005.
Please find enclosed a further copy of our previous correspondence dated 8 June, with copies of it’s
enclosures.
We are taking our client’s instructions in response to your previous correspondence dated 7 June and shall
revert to you further on that once we have received those.
We look forward to receiving a copy of your client’s Defence.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered In England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: bristol Bridge Héuse 138-141 Redciff Street Bristol 891 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society www.bondpearce.com
1810326341
POL00083351
POL00083351
Denise Gammack
From: Denise Gammack
Sent: 27 June 2005 1A:M8.....
To: ‘cheryl. woodwai
Subject: RE: Lee Castleton
Hi Cheryl,
Thanks for letting me know. In the meantime the extension to the deadline for filing the defence has been
agreed so we will see that in early August.
I look forward to hearing from you further,
Denise
-Original Message-
From: cheryl.woodward.
Sent: 27 June 2005 11:05
To: Denise Gammack
Subject: RE: Lee Castleton
Hi Denise
Just to keep you up to date Paul has passed this case onto his Manager Jennifer Robson who in turn is awaiting a
reply from some body else. Will get back to you as soon as possible.
Thanks Cheryl.
JOR EOE USI ORCS OBO IE ROR OCI CORO ISI ISIS OKIOIE SIAR AIA ACRAGK ICAI RAGA
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.
SOR OER BODES ERO KE ORI OSCE EOS ORE EC OCS OCIOKIOK ISI RISA ARAKI IK IAA
Denise Gammack
POL00083351
POL00083351
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Denise
Cheryl. WOOdWaR ewe
27 June 2005 11:05
Denise Gammack
RE: Lee Castleton
Just to keep you up to date Paul has passed this case onto his Manager Jennifer Robson who in turn is awaiting a
reply from some body else. Will get back to you as soon as possible.
Thanks Cheryl.
JOR ORO IIB OSI GEE IRI OBOE ISOS ESOC OCORIOKIOIEORIOKIORIOKISISI IRI ARIGKAIIAAARAAKA
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.
JORIS GE RISB E ISOS OB OKIE OSIRIA ROK OS ORES REISS ISAK IRI AIC IGKIRARARAAEAA
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 22 June 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Ple. ask for: Mark Tumet =
Direct dial: t '
Direct fax : i G RO '
E-mail:
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
DX 8251
PLYMOUTH
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for confirming the extension of time in respect of service of our client’s Defence. We shall confirm
the position to the court as required by CPR Part 15.5.
We note the reference in your letter of 9 June to a letter sent to us dated 8 June enclosing the missing
documents in respect of Weeks 51 and 52. That letter does not appear to have been received ~ we can only
assume that it has gone astray in the DX system. Could you please provide a further copy of it, together with
enclosures?
Can you please tell us when we might expect a substantive response to our letter of 7 June? It is now over two
weeks since it was sent and we have still not heard from you in relation to the points raised in it.
‘Yours faithfully
‘KOWE CONEN”
Quay House « Quay Street + Manchester M3 3JE »
DX 14352 MCR-1 « Email
Partners: SE. Cohen » I. Row
iymanson * G.P Small» A. Dennison » BLT. Coghlan » J3¢ Dwek + A Farley « A Sacks + A iylor “
A Cacwen« Ric Myers D. apo s H.Baroe Aasocates LE Swering © AD. Ovens “SP Saton* M. Molly Consult: MIT Horwich
‘a
GAMARKT\ABBEY\CASTLETON20605, FITPR TR BOND PEARCE
Denise Gammack
POL00083351
POL00083351
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi D,
Sarah Bramall
21 June 2005 16:05
Denise Gammack
SGM - claim for interest
Laura reminded me that it was Julian who confirmed that we could claim for interest, with an added comment
from MBW.
The SI's number are 2002/1673, 2002/1674 and 2002/1675.
I have checked out an invoice and there is no mention of interest however it does state that all goods are sold
subject to the company's standard terms and conditions which are available on request.
In the T & C's it states that in the event of non payment the Company reserves the right to charge interest at the
rate per annum equal to the base rate of HSBC Bank pic, plus 8 % on all monies overdue from whatsoever cause
until payment in full is made.
Hope this helps! What do you reckon???
Thanks
Ss
POL00083351
POL00083351
Sally Rundle
From: cheryl.woodwardé :
Sent: 15 June 2005 12:1
To: Sally Rundle
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Hi Sally
Yes I can agree with this time scale.
The case at the moment is with my Manager Paul Dann as there were several things Mr Castleton's Solicitors were
asking and I am unable to give the answers or decisions to so I will get back to you as soon as the case has been
passed back to me.
Thanks Cheryl.
JOSS SISOS ISOS ISIS SCSI ISEI SRE SEE SE ISS OSICKIOSI ASIII ASIII AIR AAR A AGRAGKA
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.
JOSS OSS SS ISIS SESS SIS ETE IORI TSI OCIOSI IOS SKIS RIAA ASASEAAR AGRA OKA AA a
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
S$ -Rundle
From: — Sally Rundle
Sent: 15 June 2005 11:49
To: ‘cheryl.woodward:
Ce: Denise Gammack
Subject: Lee Castleton
Dear Cheryl
I refer to the e-mail dated 9 June 2005 sent to you by my colleague Laura Branton confirming
that this file would now be dealt with by me.
Laura has passed me all the papers that she has and I am currently reviewing those in order to
get up to speed with matters.
Today we have received a letter from Mr Castleton's solicitors confirming receipt of
the Claim Form. They confirm they will be defended the claim and calculate the Defence to be
due by 11 July 2005. This is correct.
Mr Castleton's solicitor states that he will be away from the office:
July and has asked us to agree a 28 day extension of time for service of his client's Defence. I
am minded to agree to this request, because it should ensure that a proper defence is filed by
the fee-earner that is actually dealing with the matter rather than a probably less informed
colleague having to step into the breach. In addition, this will allow me time to review the
matter and check that any outstanding issues relating to disclosure either have been or will be
properly addressed.
I should be grateful if you would let me know your views on this before I formally respond to Mr
Castleton's solicitor.
I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss
anything relating to this matter.
Yours sincerely
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
Denise Gammack
Solicitor
15/06/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Brod. frarce
Work chit
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Denise Gammack Location: N/A Date: 15 June 2005
Start time: Units:
DEG engaged in reviewing this matter and the papers which had been passed to her by LRB
in order to determine the relevant background, etc.
DEG noting that Mr Castleton had been suspended after large losses had arisen in his
accounts. In excess of £27,000. He has been suspended on 23 March 2004 and
investigations had been carried out into the fact that the cash that he was holding in the post
office appeared to be well in excess of what had actually been recorded in the system.
Thereafter the cash had “disappeared” with no explanation. There is a clear difference
between the transactions being recorded and the cash being declared. Mr Castleton
maintains that this is a result of problems with the computer system rather than him or any
of his staff. Royal Mail have had the system reviewed by Fujitsu, the service provider, they
confirm that there is no problem with the software. Mr Castleton has instructed solicitors
who maintain that their client needs to be provided with copies of the daily sheets
maintained by the system, so that he can show that the computer, when it took all the daily
balances, did not add them up properly and showed an incorrect weekly figure at each
weekend,
DEG noting that proceedings have been issued and the claim will be defended and that the
Defendant solicitor has requested an extension. DEG minded to agree in this instance.
File review 25 Units
DEG running the clock throughout
DEG then preparing an email to Cheryl Woodward at the post office for her instructions in
relation to the extension.
2 units
1A_1024675_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
band, bearce
Work chit
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending:
Name: Denise Gammack Location: N/A Date: 15 June 2005
Start time: Units:
DEG considering an email received from Cheryl Woodward at Royal Mail.
1 unit
DEG then typing and sending her a reply.
1 unit
DEG then dictating a letter to Rowe Cohen Solicitors confirming the agreement to the
extension to filing the Defence.
2 units
DEG then diarising relevant dates.
1 unit
1A_1024693_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
15 June 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
By Dx Only West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
-Rawe.Coben.Solicitors...
Our ref:
DEG1/LAF1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Post Office Limited
Your Client: Mr L Castleton
Thank you for your correspondence dated 13 June 2005.
Please note our revised reference above. We confirm that our client agrees to allow your client an
extension of 28 days for filing his Defence. By our calculation this will render the Defence due by 15
August 2005. Please confirm that this is agreed.
We shall deal with the issues raised in your previous correspondence dated 7 June 2005 under separate
cover.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redciiff Street Bristol 8S1 68). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Alist of members of Bond Pearce Is open for inspection at the registered office, Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1024659_1
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £28489.01 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Mrs Witty
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 14 June 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT.
LRB checking that claim forms have been served on the Defendant's solicitors because Notice of Issue states
"Defendant". Being told that she did not issue the claim but Rowe & Cohen are on the record so she would assume
that they have been served the papers.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 13 June 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
Our ref MDT.113969
Please for: Mark Tumer
Direct dial: i
Direct fax : H G RO
E-mail: ! i
Bond Pearce
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We have now received your client’s claim form served by the court. We shall file Acknowledgement of
Service indicating an intention to defend the claim.
By our calculation, our client’s Defence is due for service by 11 July. Given the ongoing discussions
regarding disclosure of documents which our client considers to be fundamentally important to the preparation
of his defence and claim against the Post Office, and also that the writer is away from the office on
honeymoon from 1 July to 21 July, we would invite you to agree a 28 day extension of time for service of our
client’s statement of case. We can then review the position as that revised deadline approaches and determine
whether a further extension is required and, if so, make a joint approach to the court to deal with the matter by
consent.
We look forward to hearing from you in this regard and also in relation to our letter of 7 June.
ROWE COHEN
p~ Pine douse-n. Ougy Street » Manchester M3 36 « Tel +4
i RO
urns Associates: L.E Swerling » AD, Owens $2 Sutton « M. Molloy Consultant: M.T: Horwich
Ne al
GAMARKT\ABBEY\CASTLETON\I30605 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 13 June 2005
Y veft LRB1/348035.134
Ow ref MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial: —
Diet GRO I
“NO PE ap Ay
PoenmauT the
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton —- Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We have now received your client’s claim form served by the court. We shall file Acknowledgement of
Service indicating an intention to defend the claim,
By our calculation, our client’s Defence is due for service by 11 July. Given the ongoing discussions
regarding disclosure of documents which our client considers to be fundamentally important to the preparation
of his defence and claim against the Post Office, and also that the writer is away from the office on
honeymoon from 1 July to 21 July, we would invite you to agree a 28 day extension of time for service of our
client’s statement of case. We can then review the position as that revised deadline approaches and determine
whether a further extension is required and, if so, make a joint approach to the court to deal with the matter by
consent,
We look forward to hearing from you in this regard and also in relation to our letter of 7 June.
Yours faithfully
: jer]
febsite Wiwraweohien.com
c TACLeWis = MV Hymnanson + G.B Small »A. Dennison © BE! Coghlan « JN Dwek + A. larly » A. Sacks «A “yr yf?
M.CMoodall » RJ. Sproston + 8 Room + A. Curwen * RJ. Myer + D. aro » H. Burne Associates: LP Swerling + AD. Owens + S.2 Sutton + M. Molloy Consultant: M1 Horsch
Tsim sete by the Law Sat
Also at London
te
GAMARKTUNBEYCASTIINONN AS L7H NDP O rHaNcH
tesstin br HineLH
POL00083351
POL00083351
Gand. leanrce
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
ax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
To: Mark Turner Rowe Cohen Solicitors Fax: I GRO_ I
cc: Your ref:
From: Laura Branton Our ref: LRB1/348035.134
Directs” . 1 Date : 9 June 2005
Fax: + GRO ! Time:
Number of pages: 2 URGENT
Confidentiality notice
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents. Instead, please notify the sender as soon
as possible and destroy the fax.
ond Pearce LLP, 2 Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0¢321430, alt
Bene rears eet usta Sedge Huce 156 Ta Reet ecce Brisa we Go aT number Goias 9282 07. A
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
9 June 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL 3AE
Rowe & Cohen
DX 14352
MANCHESTER - 1
BY FAX & DX Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We thank you for your letter dated 7 June 2005. We confirm a copy has been forwarded to
our client and we will revert to you with a substantive response as soon as possible.
In the meantime, we refer to our letter dated 8 June 2005 which you should receive this
morning. The final accounts for Week 51 and 52 were enclosed and we also confirmed that
the claim forms had been issued to the court yesterday and that sealed copies would be
served upon you in due course.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP,
Registered office:
Alist of Members
Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Fistol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol B81. 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
‘avallable from our registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Memo
If you have any questions concerni
memo please telephone the num!
this
below
To: Denise Gammack ce:
From: Laura Branton Ref: LRB1/LRB1/.
Date: 9 June 2005
Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Denise
I refer to my e-mail of today's date to you. I attach my file and the client's papers (in grey
bag) for you.
As advised, I am starting to feel out of my depth and would therefore be grateful if you
would deal with this file on my behalf.
You helped me with the most recent letter to the debtor's solicitors and I have issued
proceedings with the usual post office precedent. A copy of the debtor's solicitor letter has
been forwarded to my client (Chery! Woodward) for her instructions.
land telephone
Her contact details are: cheryl. woodwarg
If you require any background information, please let me know.
Many thanks.
Laura Branton
Credit Management Services
POL00083351
POL00083351
Branton - Re: Lee Castleton : Page 1]
om: Laura Branton
10: cheryl.woodwar«
Date: 09 June 2005 2:25pm
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton
Dear Cheryl
Thank you for your response. I confirm that I have also referred the file to a more experienced
colleague to deal with this matter. Her name is Denise Gammack
6° This matter is likely to become protracted; Denise is a
itt dealing with these matters.
I hope this is acceptable but if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
>>> <cheryl.woodwar "7 10:56:47 09/06/2005 >>>
Hi Laura,
I've passed this on to Paul Dann my Manager as soon as I know anymore I
will contact you.
Thanks Cheryl.
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.
pevawentveumerrssterentesrsreteced ereccer: Cccerie Coo i ooo i sg
ce: Denise Gammack
POL00083351
POL00083351
I Laura Branton - Lee Castleton Page 1 I
nn Laura Branton
Tu: cheryl.woodwa
Date: 09 June 2005 9:39am
Subject: Lee Castleton
Dear Cheryl
Please find attached a copy of the response I have received from the debtor's solicitor today. I can
confirm that the claim has already been issued and copies should be served upon the debtor's solicitor
in due course. I would be grateful if you would provide me with your detailed response in relation to
the issues raised in the attached letter. Your comments would also be appreciated in relation to the
comments made about the audit report and an audit trail.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Web: www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
8 June 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe & Cohen
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We refer to our letter dated 25 May 2005 and apologise for the delay in responding to you.
We enclose copies of the final cash accounts for Week 51 and 52 as requested.
We confirm that papers have been issued to the court today to issue a claim and a sealed
copy will be served upon you in due course.
Yours faithfully
Enclosures
1. Cash Account (Final)
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redcliff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Allist of Members is available from our registered office. Regulated by the Law Society, www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 7 June 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
wneft MDT.113969
vie. . ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial: H
Direct fax : BO!
E-mail: .
Bond Pearce
Solicitors,
GRO
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for your letter of 25 May.
Daily snapshots
You state that your client is unable to provide the daily snapshots previously requested. These documents
were removed from Marine Drive Post Office by Mrs Oglesby. We are not asking your client to reproduce
these from its computer system or to create them afresh. Rather, we are asking your client to return to our
client documents which were removed and which already exist.
Indeed, your client has in fact already returned a number of the daily snapshots to our client. The difficulty
which our client has is that those which have been returned to him do not form complete weeks, with the
exception of Week 49, for which a complete set of daily snapshots for that week have been provided. In order
to be of any use in following the movements on the cash account, our client requires sight of the daily
snapshots for each day of each week of the period during which it is alleged that there were shortfalls.
In relation to Week 49, our client believes that, by reference to the daily snapshots, he can demonstrate from a
manual reconciliation of the daily cash balances that the end-of-week figure provided by the Horizon system
is not correct. In order to perform a similar exercise for each of the other weeks, our client obviously requires
a complete set of daily snapshots. Our client is adamant that production of these documents will allow him to
demonstrate what he has maintained all along, namely that there is no shortfall to account for but rather the
problem lies within the Horizon system producing inaccurate figures.
If your client now claims that it is unable to produce the remainder of the daily snapshots taken by Mrs
Oglesby and which have not yet been returned to our client, we require an explanation of precisely why your
client says that they are not available.
Weekly snapshots
You say that the daily would appear to be superfluous since our client has already received copies of the
weekly snapshots, and that the information contained in those weekly snapshots would be the same. We must
respectfully disagree with this analysis.
The root of the problem with the Horizon of which our client complains is that the system for some reason
fails to accurately collate the figures from the daily snapshots when performing the weekly balancing
protocol. In other words, our client believes that the only way to verify the accuracy or otherwise of the
Quay House » Quay Street « Manchester M3 3}
1 Copan» IV De «A Fey » A Sac «A itor
Merocaten Lf Sweting © AD, Owens + Sk Suton *M. Malloy Comvattants MT. Horwich f »
AL
Aso a Lando ciwankrannencasr sroworg eTER TS pon gesnce
POL00083351
POL00083351
figures in the weekly snapshots and weekly balances is to manually cross-check them by reference to the daily
snapshots. For that reason, we do not accept your suggestion that the daily snapshots are superfluous.
you. 30 refer in passing to our client having signed off on the weekly balances, presumably to suggest that he
was aware of and accepted the figures. Our client did in fact sign them off, but only because he was told that
the apparent losses could not be put into suspense unless and until he signed the figures off. As such, he had
little alternative but to do so. His signature on the weekly accounts should not therefore be taken as implying
acceptance of the accuracy of their contents.
Audit trail
With respect, we believe that you have misunderstood our request for a copy of a complete audit trail for
Marine Drive Post Office for the period during which your client alleges there to have been a shortfall. What
you enclosed with your letter is a copy of what you describe as the audit report prepared by your client
immediately before our client was suspended from his post. This is not what we asked for.
As we endeavoured to explain in our previous letter, the audit trail is a list of all of the transactions carried out
within our client’s post office. Our client believes that this will also be relevant in demonstrating that a manual
reconciliation of the figures will yield a different (and we say, correct) result compared with that produced by
the Horizon computer system.
We find it difficult to believe that your client is unable to access such management information simply
because the “month end has been closed down”. Is your client really asking us to believe that it has no way of
accessing information regarding transactions within one of its post offices once the month in question has
been completed.
In point of fact, what you enclosed with your letter is not actually the audit report in any event. We are
instructed that enclosure is actually a covering note setting out the report from the auditor to Mrs Oglesby.
Our client informs us that the audit report itself would have been a manuscript writing document and that, in
the ordinary course of events, our client should have signed it at the time of the audit. This did not take place.
Please provide a copy of the actual audit report prepared by the auditor who attended at Marine Drive Post
Office.
We also would observe in passing that “audit report” which you have provided incorrectly states that the audit
took place on 25 March 2004 when it in fact took place on 23 March. This is directly relevant for present
purposes but it is relevant in relation to the issue of the balancing of the first week’s figures and the more
general question of your client’s claim against our client arising from the alleged shortfalls.
We reserve our client’s position in relation to the various other categories of documents referred to in our
letter of 11 April. We agree that some of these can await disclosure in the usual way. We maintain, however,
that it is premature for your client to issue proceedings whilst the issue of pre-action disclosure is being
resolved. The question of whether or not a manual reconciliation of the daily snapshots yields a different
result to that provided by the Horizon system, which our client maintains is the case, will be fundamental to
this case. If our client is correct, and your client produces the documents that have been requested, we believe
that costs can potentially be avoided by resolving before issue.
We envisage that this may be an issue where forensic accounting evidence will be required, in which case a
joint instruction could be agreed to deal with this discrete issue.
There is no prejudice to your client in delaying issuing proceedings while this issue is resolved. If our client’s
contention is ultimately found to be incorrect, your client is no worse off than if it issued proceedings now. If,
on the other hand, our client is vindicated in his belief, costs will have been saved on both sides.
G)\MARKT\ABBEY\CASTLETONI070605 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
POL00083351
POL00083351
“ill defer any further action in respect of an application for pre-action disclosure for the time being,
pea, .g hearing from you in relation to the points raised above. We anticipate that close of business on Friday
17 June should be ample time for you to take instructions in that regard.
Yours faithfully
GRO I
ROWE COHEN
GAMARKTABBEY.CASTLETONW70605 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 7 June 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Ph: ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial: co = ~~
Direct fax : I GRO I ROWE COHEN
t i i SOLICITORS
E-mail: H I a
Bond Pearce
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton —- Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for your letter of 25 May.
Daily snapshots
You state that your client is unable to provide the daily snapshots previously requested. These documents
were removed from Marine Drive Post Office by Mrs Oglesby. We are not asking your client to reproduce
these from its computer system or to create them afresh. Rather, we are asking your client to return to our
client documents which were removed and which already exist.
Indeed, your client has in fact already returned a number of the daily snapshots to our client. The difficulty
which our client has is that those which have been returned to him do not form complete weeks, with the
exception of Week 49, for which a complete set of daily snapshots for that week have been provided. In order
to be of any use in following the movements on the cash account, our client requires sight of the daily
snapshots for each day of each week of the period during which it is alleged that there were shortfalls.
In relation to Week 49, our client believes that, by reference to the daily snapshots, he can demonstrate from a
manual reconciliation of the daily cash balances that the end-of-week figure provided by the Horizon system
is not correct. In order to perform a similar exercise for each of the other weeks, our client obviously requires
a complete set of daily snapshots. Our client is adamant that production of these documents will allow him to
demonstrate what he has maintained all along, namely that there is no shortfall to account for but rather the
problem lies within the Horizon system producing inaccurate figures.
If your client now claims that it is unable to produce the remainder of the daily snapshots taken by Mrs
Oglesby and which have not yet been returned to our client, we require an explanation of precisely why your
client says that they are not available.
Weekly snapshots
You say that the daily would appear to be superfluous since our client has already received copies of the
weekly snapshots, and that the information contained in those weekly snapshots would be the same. We must
respectfully disagree with this analysis.
The root of the problem with the Horizon of which our client complains is that the system for some reason
fails to accurately collate the figures from the daily snapshots when performing the weekly balancing
protocol. In other words, our client believes that the only way to verify the accuracy or otherwise of the
~- Quay House.» Quay Street + Manchester M3 3)E » Tel
I Rowe + MX ymanson + .2 Small «A Denison +B: Coghlan «IX Dn «A Fey «A Sach » A. Tr
Ry. Sproston "8. Room » A. Cswen* RJ. Myer D. Yano H. Burne Assosates: LF Suerling “AD. Ovens" SP Sutton *M, Malloy Consultant MT Horwich C D)
lated by the Lae Saces
GAMARKTBBEYICASTLETONO70605 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
POL00083351
POL00083351
figures in the weekly snapshots and weekly balances is to manually cross-check them by reference to the daily
snapshots. For that reason, we do not accept your suggestion that the daily snapshots are superfluous.
Yc .so refer in passing to our client having signed off on the weekly balances, presumably to suggest that he
was aware of and accepted the figures. Our client did in fact sign them off, but only because he was told that
the apparent losses could not be put into suspense unless and until he signed the figures off. As such, he had
little alternative but to do so. His signature on the weekly accounts should not therefore be taken as implying
acceptance of the accuracy of their contents.
Audit trail
With respect, we believe that you have misunderstood our request for a copy of a complete audit trail for
Marine Drive Post Office for the period during which your client alleges there to have been a shortfall. What
you enclosed with your letter is a copy of what you describe as the audit report prepared by your client
immediately before our client was suspended from his post. This is not what we asked for.
As we endeavoured to explain in our previous letter, the audit trail is a list of all of the transactions carried out
within our client’s post office. Our client believes that this will also be relevant in demonstrating that a manual
reconciliation of the figures will yield a different (and we say, correct) result compared with that produced by
the Horizon computer system.
We find it difficult to believe that your client is unable to access such management information simply
because the “month end has been closed down”. Is your client really asking us to believe that it has no way of
accessing information regarding transactions within one of its post offices once the month in question has
been completed.
In point of fact, what you enclosed with your letter is not actually the audit report in any event. We are
instructed that enclosure is actually a covering note setting out the report from the auditor to Mrs Oglesby.
Our client informs us that the audit report itself would have been a manuscript writing document and that, in
the ordinary course of events, our client should have signed it at the time of the audit. This did not take place.
Please provide a copy of the actual audit report prepared by the auditor who attended at Marine Drive Post
Office.
We also would observe in passing that “audit report” which you have provided incorrectly states that the audit
took place on 25 March 2004 when it in fact took place on 23 March. This is directly relevant for present
purposes but it is relevant in relation to the issue of the balancing of the first week’s figures and the more
general question of your client’s claim against our client arising from the alleged shortfalls.
We reserve our client’s position in relation to the various other categories of documents referred to in our
letter of 11 April. We agree that some of these can await disclosure in the usual way. We maintain, however,
that it is premature for your client to issue proceedings whilst the issue of pre-action disclosure is being
resolved. The question of whether or not a manual reconciliation of the daily snapshots yields a different
result to that provided by the Horizon system, which our client maintains is the case, will be fundamental to
this case. If our client is correct, and your client produces the documents that have been requested, we believe
that costs can potentially be avoided by resolving before issue.
We envisage that this may be an issue where forensic accounting evidence will be required, in which case a
joint instruction could be agreed to deal with this discrete issue.
There is no prejudice to your client in delaying issuing proceedings while this issue is resolved. If our client’s
contention is ultimately found to be incorrect, your client is no worse off than if it issued proceedings now. If,
on the other hand, our client is vindicated in his belief, costs will have been saved on both sides.
GAMARKT\ABBEY\CASTLETON\O70605 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE,
POL00083351
POL00083351
We will defer any further action in respect of an application for pre-action disclosure for the time being,
pet. g hearing from you in relation to the points raised above. We anticipate that close of business on Friday
17 June should be ample time for you to take instructions in that regard.
Yours faithfully
ROWE COHEN
G-\MARKTABBEY(CASTLETONO70605 LETTER TO BOND PEARCE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £28453.37 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Cheryl
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 8 June 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT.
LRB confirming receipt of cash account but advising she was expecting to see snapshots etc/receipt format. Being told
that was not attached to the cash account. LRB asking for reassurance that it will be sufficient and being told the final
account will have all of the relevant information on it because it is replicated from the receipt format. On that basis
confirming that the claim will be sent to the court today.
POL00083351
POL00083351
25 May 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Scarborough County Court
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
Dear Sir
Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
We enclose herewith:
1 Claim Form N1.
2 Particulars of Claim.
3 Our cheque for £400.00 in respect of Court fees.
Please effect service at the address of the Defendant's solicitors, as follows:-
Rowe & Cohen
DX 14352
Manchester 1
Ref: MDT.113969
We look forward to receiving the Notice of Service as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully
Enclosures
1. Claims forms and cheque
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430..
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 238-141 Redciff Street Bristol BS1 68), VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A\list of Members is available from our registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
Fax
If any of this fax is missing or illegible
please telephone the number below
POL00083351
POL00083351
Gand. leanrce
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
To: Mr M Turner Rowe & Cohen Fax: i GRO I
ce: Your ra ;
From: Laura Branton Our ref: LRB1/348035. 134
= Date : 25 May 2005
Fax: +4... _GRO j Time:
Number of pages: 3 URGENT
Confidentiality notice
IMPORTANT ~ The information in this fax is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents. Instead, please notify the sender as soon
‘as possible and destroy the fax.
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Lablty Partnership. Re
: Bristol Bridge House 138~
istered in England and Wales number OC311430.
Street Bristol 8S1 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
istered
Aili of Members is avaiable Wom our registered office. Regulated by the Law Society.
www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
25 May 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
“pirecert”
BY POST & DX our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We refer to your letter dated 23 May 2005.
DISCLOSURE
We confirm that our client has confirmed the original financial transactions in respect of
Week 51 and 52 will be forwarded to us today. We will provide you with copies in due
course. In the meantime, we enclose a copy of the final audit as requested.
We are advised by our client that they are unable to provide daily snapshots as requested in
your letter dated 11 April 2005. This would appear to be superfluous as our client instructs
that this same information would be provided in the weekly snapshots that you have already
seen and would also be confirmed in the weekly cash account which, incidentally, these cash
accounts have been agreed and signed by your client. We understand your request but as
your client is probably aware, these cannot be obtained retrospectively and the month end
has been closed down. We trust the information you seek is shown in the weekly cash
accounts.
We note your proposed application for pre-action disclosure. We confirm that our client has
confirmed that all paperwork has been disclosed to us and in turn, copies have been
provided to you. There will be no benefit to either party to make such an application. In any
event we would submit that the issues can be dealt with at the disclosure stage.
On the matter of the conversation between your Mr Turner and our Laura Branton on 15
March, we believe that the conversation may have been taken out of context. Our Ms
Branton was simply speculating on what she thought might have been causing a delay in
obtaining papers.
ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS
Our client has instructed us to issue proceedings against yours and note that you have
confirmed you are instructed to accept service of the same.
Yours faithfully
Enclosures
1. Audit Report
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Labilty Partnership. Registered in England and Woles number OC31430,
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redclff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GBi43 0282 07.
A ifgt of Members (s avaliable rom our registered ofice. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Cheryl
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 25 May 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending Cheryl IN.
Being told that she has found week 51 & 52 and will sent to me. In respect of the daily snapshots, they are unable to
provide this and do not see the benefit in doing so. The weekly snapshots have already been provided and Mr C would
have signed the weekly cash accounts.
POL00083351
POL00083351
[Laura Branton - Lee Castleton - Marine Drive POFAD 213/377 “Page 1]
m: Laura Branton
To: cheryl.woodwarc
Date: 24 May 2005 4:05prvi
Subject: Lee Castleton - Marine Drive PO FAD 213/377
Dear Cheryl
I have left a message with Clive for you to call me tomorrow morning. Just so you know what
information I require, I thought it would be helpful to also send an e-mail to you.
I have thoroughly checked the accounts papers that you have already sent to me. They are now in
order and Week 51 and 52 are definitely not there. The debtor's solicitor has given us until 27/5/05 to
provide copies of the following papers.
Week 51 & 52 transactions
Snapshots for 18-20, 22-23, 27 & 29-31 Dec
Snapshots for 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20, 22-24, 26-27, 29-31 Jan
Snapshots for 2-3, 5-7, 9, 19-21, 23-25 Feb
Snapshots for 4-6, 8 March
I see that there are weekly snapshots but I do not think there are daily snapshots. Is this something
that can be extracted from a disk held somewhere. Likewise, could the same be extracted for returns
for Week 51-52.
It would be pointless for the debtor's solicitors to make an application for pre-action disclosure if you
simply do not have the papers but in turn, it will damage the claim if we are unable to provide evidence
pivotal to the claim.
I would be grateful if you would contact me to discuss this further.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Cherylf GRO. _I
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 24 May 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT to Clive.
Being told that Chery! works part time and will not be in until tomorrow morning. LRB asking for a call back.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 23 May 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
Yur ref: MDT.113969
auc ask for: Mark Turner
Direct dial: ii ‘
Direct fax : G RO i BOW: COREN
E-mail: H —
Ms Laura Branton
Bond Pearce
-Soligitors....
By DX and Fax
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton ~ Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to our letter of 11 April dealing with pre-action disclosure.
Some six weeks on, we have still not received a substantive response from you as to whether your client is
prepared to provide voluntary disclosure of the documents identified in our letter. Both we and our client
consider those documents to be of fundamental importance in demonstrating that the shortfalls alleged by your
client to exist are in fact nothing of the kind but rather are caused by the problems with the Horizon computer
system of which our client has been complaining for many months.
You indicated when we last spoke, on 10 May, that the source of the continuing delay in responding was that
you were liasing with your client to ensure that everyone who has been involved with this matter had been
canvassed to ensure that they had provided any relevant documents in their possession.
With respect, this does not sit particularly easily with the conversation which Ms Branton had with our Mr
Turner on 15 March. During that conversation, you explained that the delay in a decision on whether your
client intended to pursue our client in respect of the alleged shortfalls was not as a result of a need to collate
further evidence, but simply that your client was weighing up the commerciality of pursuing such a claim.
You went as far as to say that your client had all the information which it required in order to form a view on
the merits of the claim and had completed its investigations. Surely all potential witnesses were canvassed as
part of that process?
You also indicated when we spoke on 10 May that your client believed that it had already returned to our
client all of the documents which had been removed from Marine Drive Post Office by Mrs Oglesby, and that
nothing further remained to be disclosed.
Firstly, this is patently incorrect — you accepted in your letter of 16 February, under cover of which documents
were sent to us, that documents relating to financial weeks 51 and 52 were not enclosed and would follow in
due course. They have not subsequently been sent to us. As far as we are aware, there is no issue with those
documents being made available.
Secondly, we find it very difficult to believe that your client retains no documents whatsoever falling into
those categories identified in our letter of 11 April. At the very least, we understand from your client that your
client should be able to reproduce the audit trail by re-printing it from the computer system. If your client
maintains that it retains no documents identified in our letter, please confirm what your client says happened
to them.
+ Quay Strget + Manchs
SECTORS? Howe « Dy Lewis « MU. Fymanson » G2 Small» A. Denizon +B: Cogan « J Dwek «A Farley» A. Sak «A ir
i Rf Sproat" S Room + Curven » Rl Myer» D. Woo H, Baro Aeocites Lit Sein = MD. Ovens "SB Seton «M6. Molloy Conaultant: MT Horwich
cena vty arenes FERTO BONO PEACE INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
Also at London
POL00083351
POL00083351
Our client has had the threat of proceedings brought by your client in respect of the alleged shortfall hanging
-ver him for a considerable period now. He is entitled to know how your client intends to proceed. Even if
ye. ient does not intend to pursue its claim, he is still entitled to sight of the documents set out in our letter
of 11 April since they are clearly relevant in the context of determining whether he has a claim against your
client arising from its termination of his sub-postmaster’s contract.
Our client cannot and will not let this matter drift indefinitely. Your client appears to feel no particular sense
of urgency in dealing with the request for pre-action disclosure, or indeed this matter as a whole. Accordingly,
if no substantive response has been received from you to our request for pre-action disclosure by close of
business this coming Friday 27 May, we shall issue an application without further recourse to you. We reserve
the right draw the court’s attention to our exchange of correspondence in this regard on the question of costs.
ROWE COHEN
23/05 '05 10:41 FAX ROWECOHEN
QUAY HOUSE, QUAY ST!
Telephone No: ‘
Fax No's:-
Claimant Dept:
Defendant Dept;
CommerciaI Dapt:
Conveyancing Dept: I
e-mall: :
website: Hl
Fax
JE (OX 14352 MCR-1)
POL00083351
POL00083351
@oar
ROWE C:
SOLICITORS
To: Laura Branton - Bond Pearce From: Mark Turnar
Pages: 3
Date: 23/05/05
Re: _The Post Office/.ee Castieton ce:
X Urgent a for Review OC Please Comment
1
i
O Please Reply
U Please Recycle
POL00083351
POL00083351
23/05 '05 10:41 FA: ROWECOHEN - Haoz
Date: 23 May 2005
2 ooTef: LRB1/348035.134
OL. .ef: MDT.113969
Please ask for ~~
Direct dial: I R i
Direct fax : t i ROWE COHEN
E-mail: H i —
Ms Laura Branton,
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
By DX and Fax
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to our letter of 11 April dealing with pre-action disclosure.
Some six weeks on, we have still not received a substantive response from you as te whether your client is
prepared to provide voluntary disclosure of the documents identified in our letter. Both we and our client
consider those documents to be of fundamental importance in demonstrating that the shortfalls alleged by your
client to exist are in fact nothing of the kind but rather are caused by the problems with the Horizon computer
system of which our client has been complaining for many months.
You indicated when we last spoke, on 10 May, that the source of the continuing delay in responding was that
you were liasing with your client to ensure that everyone who has been involved with this matter had been
canvassed to ensure that they had provided any relevant documents in their possession.
With respect, this does not sit particularly easily with the conversation which Ms Branton had with our Mr
Tumer on 15 March. During that conversation, you explained that the delay in a decision on whether your
client intended to pursue our client in respect of the alleged shortfalls was not as a result of a need to collate
further evidence, but simply that your client was weighing up the commerciality of pursuing such a claim.
You went as far as to say that your client had all the information which it required in order to form a view on
the merits of the claim and had completed its investigations. Surely all potential witnesses were canvassed as
part of that process?
You also indicated when we spoke on 10 May that your client believed that it had already returned to our
client all of the documents which had been removed from Marine Drive Post Office by Mrs Oglesby, and that
nothing further remained to be disclosed.
Firstly, this is patently incorrect — you accepted in your letter of 16 February, under cover of which documents
were sent to us, that documents relating to financial weeks 51 and $2 were not enclosed and would follow in
due course. They have not subsequently been sent to us. As far as we are aware, there is no issue with those
documents being made available.
Secondly, we find it very difficult to believe that your client retains no documents whatsoever falling into
those categories identified in our letter of 11 April. At the very least, we understand from your client that your
client should be able to reproduce the audit trail by re-printing it from the computer system. If your client
maintains that it retains no documents identified in our letter, please confirm what your client says happened
to them,
1 GRO I
‘Parnas: E, Cohen {Rowe * DJ, Horwich « LN. Lewis « MM Hymansan + GS + A Dengigan * 8.7: Coca « JM Tock» A Hvky A Sacka +A, Tylor
MleNendo = R.Sjaran “A naam + Caceen Rd Mec ©. yrs © Wve Rudocsea LF Soe «AD. Oven: = 3. Son = M Maly Comput: MT Marla ‘<
"Tas ele i te Lae Sas. ae!
arab BETSARTUR CHENEY UTE TO ROWE EANEE INVESTOR 0 PDOPLE
Also at Landon
POL00083351
POL00083351
ROWECOHEN . @a03
23/05 ‘05 10:42 FaXxi GRO
vw “ient has had the threat of proceedings brought by your client in respect of the alleged shortfall hanging
ove, im for a considerable period now. He is entitled to know how your client intends to proceed. Even if
your client does not intend to pursue its claim, he is still entitled to sight of the documents set out in our Jetter
of 11 April since they are clearly relevant in the context of determining whether he has a claim against your
client arising from its termination of his sub-postmaster’s contract.
Our client cannot and will not let this matter drift indefinitely. Your client appears to feel no particular sense
of urgency in dealing with the request for pre-action disclosure, or indeed this matter as a whole. Accordingly,
if no substantive response has been received from you to our request for pre-action disclosure by close of
business this coming Friday 27 May, we shall issue an application without further recourse to you. We reserve
the right draw the court’s attention to our exchange of correspondence in this regard on the question of costs.
Yours faithfully I
ingle eS TEATS LTE TO BEND eae
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
Laura Branton - LRB1/348035.134 Marine Drive Lee Castleon
From: <cheryl.woodwardI GRO A
To: <laura.branton!
Date: 12/05/2005 10:
Subject: LRB1/348035.134 Marine Drive Lee Castleon
Hi Laura,
Re your letter dated 10th May 2005.
I note the other side are requesting sight of Snap Shots for Wks 51 and 52,
I assume you have copies of the Cash Accounts for wks 51 and 52 both weeks
capture weekly account figures in full these have both been signed and
agreed.
Also I am in the process of finding out who did the Final Audit and once
received the name I will hopefully obtain the Audit Report.
Hope this helps thanks Cheryl.
SECS AOS A ICSI GO ISSO GEIS ISIERI ISOS EERIE IISA ECAH SEI AE
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.
JOSE IOI ORE EIEIO EIEIO RSI OOEI SOCIO C ICSI ICICI GICICI CIE IACI AACA CASI AIA
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2..._ 12/05/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Mr Turner
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 11 May 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending IN.
Being asked what the position is. LRB confirming that she has contacted her client and all related members of staff to
ensure that thorough checks are being made for further documents. Mr Turner threatening pre-action disclosure
application and LRB responding quite plainly that the situation is simply that we do not have any further documents to
disclose at present and even if they were to file an application and an order was made, we just wouldn't have the
documents to disclose. Mr T accepting this point and advising that he will wait for me to respond to him within a
reasonable time scale.
LRB assuring Mr T that if she is instructed to issue proceedings in the meantime, she will ensure that he is given
advance notice of this but in the meantime only able to advise that she will respond to him as soon as she has
instructions from her client.
POL00083351
POL00083351
10 May 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL 3AE
Cheryl Woodward
FSA Agents Debt 3
1% Floor East Block
No 1 Future Walk
Chesterfield Our ref
S49 1PF LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
LIT/247310./XBLB
Dear Cheryl
Lee Castleton
Please find enclosed a copy letter received from the debtor's solicitor.
I confirm that I have thoroughly reviewed the papers forwarded by you and I have not been able to find
the items specifically requested in their letter. On checking the papers, I note that the following people
have been involved with this matter:
Cath Oglesby ~ Retail Line Manager
Richard Benton - Service Management Section
I have spoken with Cath and Richard who advise they do not have any correspondence in their
possession. Would you please advise if there are any other employees who may hold some
correspondence relating to this matter or if there is a possibility that duplicates would be held elsewhere?
With this in mind, although you have instructed me to issue proceedings, I am reluctant to do so with the
knowledge that some vital evidence may be missing. In particular, some balance snapshots and
documents for Week 51 and 52 are missing together with an audit trail. The debtor's solicitors claim that
these documents are pivotal in allowing their client to demonstrate errors. With your knowledge of the
accounts system and of course the audit report that would have been compiled by Cath Oglesby, I would
be grateful to receive your comments on this.
Yours sincerely
Laura Branton
Credit Management Services
Enclosures
1. Copy letter from debtor's solicitor
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C331430,
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redciff Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
Allist of Members is available from our registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
3 May 2005 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe & Cohen.
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 26 April 2005.
We confirm that we are in the process of obtaining our client's instructions and will revert to
you shortly.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Registered in England and Wales number 0C311430.
Registered office: Bristol Bridge House 138-141 Redclift Street Bristol BS1 6B). VAT number GB143 0282 07.
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 26 April 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
Onn ref: MDT.113969
.sea Sk for:
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Ta
LICITORS
oi
Ms Laura Branton
Bond Pearce
Solicitors...
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for your letter of 21 April.
Our client has no intention of putting forward proposals for settlement of the alleged shortfall. You are aware
of our client’s position in that regard. If proceedings are issued, they will be met with a vigorous defence and
counterclaim in respect of your client’s wrongful termination of our client's contract. We confirm that we are
instructed to accept service of proceedings on behalf of our client.
You have singularly failed to address that part of our letter of 11 April dealing with pre-action disclosure of
documents. Your comment that “Our client has confirmed that all correspondence removed from the Post
Office by Cath Oglesby has been forwarded to us and in turn, we confirm that copies have been provided to
you” is both factually inaccurate and insufficient to address the request for pre-action disclosure which has
been made.
By your own admission in your letter of 16 February, your client has still to forward to you, at the very least,
documents from Weeks 51 and 52 under items 2 and 3 in that letter. We have not received these from you
notwithstanding your indication that they would follow “in due course”.
However, beyond that, we are instructed that documents other than those referred to in your letter of 16
February were removed from Marine Drive Post Office and have not been returned. The daily balance
snapshots, the relevance of which was explained in our letter of 11 April, were removed by Mrs Oglesby
along with the final balances.
Given our client’s position regarding the operation of the Horizon system and the unreliability of the figures
generated by it, the “raw” accounting documentation is certain to be of fundamental importance to this claim.
The balance snapshots and complete audit trail, in particular, will be pivotal in allowing our client to
demonstrate the errors which he believes exist in the system. As such, those documents will inevitably
become disclosable in due course.
That being the case, our client is entitled to seek pre-action disclosure of those documents. Indeed, we believe
that pre-action disclosure in this case is entirely consistent with the overriding objective of providing as much
information as possible, and as is required to allow a claim to be investigated, before proceedings are
instituted.
We have little doubt that a court will agree that the relevant criteria set out in CPR Part 31.16 are met in this
case. In those circumstances, we would draw the court’s attention to our correspondence requesting disclosure
of these documents when the issue of costs falls to be determined.
‘GCE Rowe « Df. Horwich + LN. Lewis » MV. Hymanton « G.P Small» A. Dennivon ¢ 8:1: Cophlan + JX Dwek + A. Parley © A. Sacks + A. Taylor
M.C Woodall » BJ. Sproston + 8, Room + A. Caran © RJ. Myer « D. Vayro » H. Burns Aasoeiates: LF Swerling * AD, Owens « S12 Sutton « M, Molloy Consultant: MT. Horwich
“Tia fies rgd the Late Sit te we
san AMR ASTSEOM OSE TER YO BOND PEARCE INVESTOR BY PEOPLE:
Also at London
POL00083351
POL00083351
We would suggest that it would be prudent for your client to defer any decision in relation to instituting
~-eedings against our client until such time as this issue has been resolved. If your client is intent on
pers, its purported claim against our client, we place you on notice now that we shall require an extension
of time for service of the Defence and Counterclaim.
You have had ample time in which to discuss with your client our client’s request for pre-action disclosure.
We are prepared to delay further action for one final period of 14 days, until close of business on Tuesday 10
May. If we have not received confirmation by that point that the documents requested in our letter of 11 April
will be made available, we envisage that we shall be instructed to apply to the court for pre-action disclosure.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
ROWE COHEN
POL00083351
POL00083351
21 April 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL 3AE
Our ref
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
Your Client - Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
We refer to your letter dated 11 April 2005 and apologise for the delay in responding to you.
Our client has confirmed that all correspondence removed from the Post Office by Cath Oglesby has been
forwarded to us and in turn, we confirm that copies have been provided to you.
Your client has claimed that the discrepancies are due to the Horizon computer system not functioning
properly. This is contradicted by the service support team and Fujitsu Services who have confirmed there
is no evidence whatsoever of any system problem. Furthermore, the Horizon computer system is still
being used and there are no further discrepancies.
We are instructed to issue proceedings against your client in respect of discrepancies in the sum of
£25,858.95 pursuant to the express terms of the contract for services.
Your client had the following contractual obligations:
(a) your client was strictly responsible for the safe custody of cash, stock of all kinds and
other property of our client, whether held by himself or by his assistants and was obliged
to keep them in a place of security (see section 12, paragraph 5 of the standard
subpostmasters contract)
(b) your client was responsible for, and obliged to make good without delay, all losses caused
through his own negligence, carelessness or error, and also losses of any kind caused by
his assistants (see section 12, paragraph 12 and section 15, paragraph 2 of the standard
subpostmasters contract)
(a) your client's financial responsibility (for example, to make good losses) did not cease when
he relinquished his appointment and he remains obliged to make good any losses incurred
during his term of office which subsequently came to light (see section 12, paragraph 13
of the standard subpostmasters contract).
The purpose of this letter is to put you on notice that unless we have received the sum of £25,858.95, or
at least payment proposals by 27 April 2005, we are instructed to issue proceedings against your client.
We would be grateful if you would advise if you are instructed to accept service of these papers.
Yours faithfully
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address. Regulated by the Law Society.www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Rebecca
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 21 April 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending IN.
Being told that the letter needs slight amendment and RL going through with LRB on phone. RL confirming OK to send
amended letter and to discuss the response with her.
POL00083351
POL00083351
20 April 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
Your Client - Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
We refer to your letter dated 11 April 2005 and apologise for the delay in responding to you.
Our client has confirmed that all correspondence removed from the Post Office by Cath Oglesby has been
forwarded to us and in turn, we confirm that copies have been provided to you.
Your client has claimed that the discrepancies are due to the Horizon computer system not functioning
properly. This is contradicted by the service support team and Fujitsu Services who have confirmed there
is no evidence whatsoever of any system problem. Furthermore, the Horizon computer system is still
being used and there are no further discrepancies.
We are instructed to issue proceedings against your client in respect of discrepancies in the sum of
£25,858.95 pursuant to the express terms of the contract for services.
Your client was strictly responsible for:
(a) the safe custody of cash, stock of all kinds and other property of our client, whether held
by himself or by his assistants and was obliged to keep them in a place of security (see
section 12, paragraph 5 of the standard subpostmasters contract)
(b) your client was responsible for, and obliged to make good without delay, all losses caused
through his own negligence, carelessness or error, and also losses of any kind caused by
his assistants (see section 12, paragraph 12 and section 15, paragraph 2 of the standard
subpostmasters contract)
(a) your client's financial responsibility (for example, to make good losses) did not cease when
he relinquished his appointment and he remains obliged to make good any losses incurred
during his term of office which subsequently came to light (see section 12, paragraph 13
of the standard subpostmasters contract).
The purpose of this letter is to put you on notice that unless we have received the sum of £25,858.95, or
at least payment proposals by 27 April 2005, we are instructed to issue proceedings against your client.
In that event, we would be grateful if you would advise as soon as possible thereafter if you are instructed
to accept service of these papers.
Yours faithfully
{A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
PoLo0083351,
Laura Branton - Post Office -v- Mr Castleton 348035,134 . . . . Page 1 I
m: Laura Branton
To: Rebecca Laugharne
Date: 20 April 2005 3:33pm
Subject: Post Office -v- Mr Castleton 348035.134
Dear Rebecca
I have discussed this matter with Stephen this morning and would be grateful for some input from you
on the attached.
Many thanks, Laura.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Memo
If you have any questions concerning this
memo please telephone the number below
To: Rebecca Laugharne cc:
From: Laura Branton Ref: LRB1/LRB1/.
Direct: }GRO! Date: 20 April 2005
Post Office Ltd -v- Lee Castleton (former subpostmaster Marine Drive)
Dear Rebecca
I would be grateful for some assistance from you on this file. Lee Castleton is the former
subpostmaster of the Marine Drive Post Office. He was suspended on 23 March 2004 due to
unexplained shortages. He had an interview on 10 May 2004 and an Appeal Hearing on 1
July 2004 which was dismissed.
Mr Castleton has continued to protest his innocence and has been particularly persistent to
attempt to clear his name. He denies that the discrepancies are as a consequence of his
actions and believes that the Horizon system was not working properly although Fujitsu
(who are the technical people for the Horizon system) have confirmed that the system is not
faulty.
T have recently been speaking with Richard Benton (Service Management Section) who had
dealing with this matter. He did advise that a new member of staff was employed by Mr
Castleton around October/November time. The discrepancies started in December. No
one is in a position to through around any allegations but there is of course a possibility that
that person could have been responsible for the discrepancies. In any event, Mr Castleton is
ultimately responsible for any discrepancies under his Subpostmaster's Contract.
Mr Castleton's solicitors have asked for copies of all of the account documentation (ie cash
snapshots, profit and loss etc) to be sent to them as all of the original papers were removed
from office when Mr Castleton was suspended. I have provided copies of everything the
post office have forwarded to me. They are still requesting further documents which I am
unable to provide because the Post Office claim there is nothing left to send to me.
The debtor's solicitors have been putting pressure on us to find out if we are issuing a claim
against Mr Castleton. Before doing this, I propose to send the following letter to them and
would be grateful if you would check the attached and advise if you would agree with it.
Alternatively, if you think that you should be dealing with this matter, I will arrange to have
the file forwarded to you.
Many thanks.
Laura Branton
Credit Management Services
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Richard Benton}
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 20 April 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT.
Richard introducing himself and advising that he works for the Service Management Section. He was asked by Dave
Pardot (Internal Crime and Policies Department) to call me. RB advising that he has been closely liaising with Cath
Oglesby who was the Retail Line Manager at the time of the losses. RB advising that he did have partial involvement
due to the deficiencies.
LRB advising that the main issues from this would specifically relate to whether the Horizon system was working
effectively. RB advising that Fujitsu had carried out an investigation. They are the technical side of the Horizon
system. All internal reconciliation cheques were OK apart from February but that was due to user error.
All cash declarations were OK and there were no discrepancies. They also checked the cash transactions against the
declarations and there were no problems.
Fujitsu had suggested user error rather than system problems and he is satisfied with that conclusion. In five years he
has advised that he has never experienced problems of this nature.
LRB advising that LC has repeatedly protested his innocence and has instructed solicitors. _LRB expressing concern
that she would only want to issue if she was entirely satisfied there were no holes in the evidence which would make
the claim fail. LRB asking if LC had any other employees who might have been responsible and RB commenting that
at one time LC had one long standing employee but he employed a new person around Oct/Nov. The losses started to
occur in December. LC had trusted his staff and did not believe they would be responsible for theft. LRB advising in
any event, even if LC did not do it, under the terms of his SPM contract for services, he would be personally liable and
RB agreeing.
RB adding that when Mr C was removed from office, the Horizon system remained there and there have been no
problems since.
LRB thanking RB for his time and confirming that she would require further information at a later date to compile
witness statements. RB confirming that would be fine.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Stephen Lister
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 20 April 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending IN on voicemail and being asked to call Richard Bentor
Attending OUT and LRB confirming she will call him. LRB advising SL that this matter is becoming quite protracted.
SL advising he is on holiday for two weeks from tomorrow and suggesting I keep Rebecca appraised of the situation.
SL stating that the file may have to be forwarded to RL to deal.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
L>ura Branton - Re: Marine Drive/Lee Castleton FAD213/337
‘saan slits
From: <cheryl.woodwai
To: “Laura Branton"
Date: 19/04/2005 09:35
Subject: Re: Marine Drive/Lee Castleton FAD213/337
In relation to the paperwork asked for in Rowe Cohens letter Mr Castleton
has been forwarded all paperwork we have available he as asked for this
time and time again and this cannot be produced and he has been told this
on every request.
Thanks Cheryl.
FE OEIC ASI ORCS SIS EEIBI GORI SSIS ICIS IIIS KIA III I EK KI IK KK
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,
JERSE BEC RE ORE ORE AEC O DORE BSCR OID AOR ICE OIAAK AIK AK
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2..._ 19/04/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Laura Branton - Re: Marine Drive/Lee Castleton FAD213/337 Page 1 ]
om: Laura Branton
fo:
Date:
Subject: Re: Marine Drive/Lee Castleton FAD213/337
Morning Cheryl
An update as soon as possible would be appreciated. There are no immediate deadlines but Mr
Castleton will continue to ring whoever he can until he knows what will be happening.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
DDI: 4
Tel: 4
Fax: I
Email
10:07:41 18/04/2005 >>>
>>> <cheryl.woodward
Hi Laura,
I am in receipt of your letter dated 15th April. The file has been passed
onto senior management who are looking in depth to this case. Can you
please let me know when you expect us to make a decision by so I can pass
this on.
Mr Castleton has rung several times in the last few days.
Thanks Cheryl.
Peer eneerrrerererecareenrsrervecartctennertrrvecccclereerstvctccccer’
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.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Peter
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 18 April 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending IN.
LRB confirming that this matter has been escalated to senior management and she is waiting instructions. Peter
advising there is nothing more he can do and he will advise Mr C to stop calling. Peter asking that I keep him
informed on all developments.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Peter Armstrong & Cheryl Woodward
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 15 April 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending IN.
Being told that Mr Castleton has contact him several times today. He has advised that he will not get involved but
wants to be kept in the loop in future. LRB explaining the situation and advising that we are waiting for some further
documentation and a final report from Fujitsu as to whether Horizon system was working properly. LRB advising her
only concern is that either Mr C has a lot of front or there is genuinely a problem with the system. LRB adding that he
has instructed a solicitor.
PA agreeing and advising that he is happy to leave it with me to chase Cheryl. LRB agreeing to do that now and call
back.
Attending OUT CW. Being told she is out today. i.
Attending OUT PA. Being told he has now left for the day. LRB advising it was a courtesy call to update and asking
that her details are left so that PA knows she tried to call.
POL00083351
POL00083351
15 April 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Cheryl Woodward
FSA Agents Debt 3
Post Office Limited
No.1 Future Walk
West Bars Our ref:
Chesterfield URB1/348035.134
S49 1PF U7/247310./XBLB
Dear Chery!
Lee Castleton
T enclose a copy of a letter received from the debtor's solicitor in connection with the above
matter.
I would be grateful if you would forward to me the further documents requested. All copy
correspondence that I have in my possession has been forwarded to the debtor's solicitor.
Would you please also advise if you have received a further response in connection with
your enquiries on the Horizon system? If you intend to issue proceedings against Mr
Castleton, a decision will need to be made very soon.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely
Laura Branton
Credit Management Services
Enclosures
1. Letter from debtor's solicitor dated 11 April 2005
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
15 April 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 11 April 2005.
A copy has been provided to our client and we will revert to you shortly when we are in
receipt of their instructions.
Yours faithfully
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address, Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 11 April 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
Our vf: MDT.113969
Ple: ask for:
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Ms Laura Branton
Bond Pearce
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton ~ Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to our previous correspondence and to our telephone conversation of 15 March (Mark Turmer/Laura
Branton). You indicated during that conversation that your client had all of the information required to make a
determination of whether it intended to pursue a civil claim against our client in respect of the alleged
shortfall, but that it was considering the commerciality of doing so. Has your client reached a conclusion in
that regard?
We admit to being surprised that the matter even required such consideration. We had understood that it was
your client policy to pursue any shortfall, no matter how small, through either the criminal or civil courts — or
indeed both. Understandably, our client wishes to know where he stands and not have this uncertainty left
hanging over him any longer.
Pre-action disclosure
Your client has previously returned some of the documents taken from our client’s premises by his line
manager, Cath Oglesby. You indicated in that letter that you were awaiting further documents from your
client in respect of Weeks 51 and 52 and that these would follow in due course. Have you yet received them
from your client?
Our client has previously provided you with a list of broad categories of documentation of which he requested
sight. Some of those have now been provided but a number of others have not. We are instructed by our client
to request copies of the following documents for the period Week 39 to Week 52 of the Post Office
Accounting System: ne
Automated Payment System daily reports;
Daily TV licence payment listings;
Weekly green Giro reports;
Postal Order weekly reports;
Inland Revenue weekly reports;
Pensions and allowances weekly reports;
The full audit trail (itemising each and every transaction carried out in our client’s Post Office)
The audit trail is vitally important in that it is required to substantiate our client’s belief that the Horizon
computer system was not functioning properly and was not recording accurately the transactions carried out in
the post office.
hen © owe + J Horch FR Le it» A Deainn «B-7. Cohian JN Duh «A ay +A Sta © 5. Tor
McMondal« Rj. Speowion +8 Booa A Corwen + Rj. Myee + Dara « H, Barns Aeoclater: Le Swelng » AD. Ovens * GR Sutton + M. Molly Consultant: MT: Horwich C
ba!
by the a Sci
‘stag ANGEE ASTON 6S LETTER TO BOND PEARCE INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Our client also requires sight of the balance snapshots generated each day by the Horizon system. He already
has the snapshots relating to certain days within the period in question but requires sight of those for the
follo~“ng days:
18-20, 22-23, 27, 29-31 December
2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20, 22-24, 26-27, 29-31 January
2-3, 5-7, 9, 19-21, 23-25 February
4-6, 8, March and all those returns for Weeks 51 and 52.
Please take your client’s instructions on whether it is prepared to make the above documents available and
within what time scale.
ours faithfully
POL00083351
POL00083351
14 March 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We thank you for your letters dated 24 February 2005 and 10 March 2005.
We note your comments and apologise that an acknowledging letter has not yet been sent
to you.
We understand your client's predicament and it is not our client's intention to prolong this
matter indefinitely. It is with that in mind that they are gathering all relevant information in
order to make a decision.
We are currently waiting further instructions from our client and will respond substantively
to you in due course.
Yours faithfully
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address. Regulated by the Law Society.www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 10 March 2005
Your ref: LRB/348035.134
Our: MDT.113969
Plea. . ask for: Mark Tumer
Direct dial: '
Direct fax : i G R O
E-mail:
Ms Laura Branton
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
We refer to our letter of 24 February, to which we do not appear to have yet received a response.
May we please now hear from you by return? Our client is entitled to know whether your client entitles to
pursue a claim against him, rather than having this left hanging over him indefinitely.
Yours faithfully
__GRO.
“ROWE COHEN
LM Hymanson « G.P Snail» A, Dennison © BT: Cophtan © 3N 2 Parley + A. Sacks » A. Tayo
2D. Vayeo # H, Burns Associates: LE Swerling + AD. Owens in © M, Molloy Comeultants N/T. Renwick
ne Sel
stan nanuanre session! Ler Tek TO BOND FEARCE INVESTOR IN PROPLE
Also at London
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
Laura Branton - LRB1/348035.134 Lee Castleton 213337 Marine
Dr. 2
From: <cheryl.woodward
To: <laura.branton{
Date: 04/03/2005 14
Subject: LRB1/348035.134 Lee Castleton 213337 Marine Drive
Hi Laura,
Iam hoping to get a report from Fujitsu who checked the equipment. If this
is possible and states the equipment was in proper working order would this
over throw a counterclaim?
Thanks Cheryl.
FEE CEO CCGG ISS SSSI IASI SI ICI ICIS CII IK SI KK aK IK IA EI OK AK ACA
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.
JOR OE GE EAE CIE CI OE ORIGO SCORE SSIES CI ORO ISIS ISI ICE TIE IAI ADK
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2... 09/03/2005
25 February 2005
Cheryl Woodward
FSA Agents Debt 3
1* Floor East Block
No 1 Future Walk
Chesterfield
S49 1PF
Dear Cheryl
Lee Castleton
POL00083351
POL00083351
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PLi 3AE
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
LIT/247310./XBLB
I enclose a copy of a letter received from debtor's solicitors in connection with the above
matter.
Could you please provide your comments together with any further instructions you may
have.
Yours sincerely
Laura Branton
Credit Management Services
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address. Regulated by the Law Society.
www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 24 February 2005 2 :
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
Jur *of: MDT.113969
Plex ask for: Mark Turmer
Direct dial:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
Ms Laura Branton
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for your letter of 21 February.
With respect, our client has already made his position abundantly clear ~ he does not accept that there is any
actual shortfall in the takings of Marine Drive Post Office and that any apparent shortfall is the result of
deficiencies in the Horizon computer system. As we understand it, your client has had problems with the
system at a number of other post offices.
The purpose of seeking the return of the papers sent to your client by our client was to enable him to prepare
an adequate defence to any proceedings to any claim your client might bring but primarily to enable our client
to determine whether to pursue a claim against your client arising from what he considers to be his wrongful
suspension by your client and the termination of his contract.
Your client must already have formed its own view as to whether or not it intends to pursue a restitutionary
claim against our client, and anything which our client might say in that regard is unlikely to make any
substantive difference. Accordingly, we see little to be gained by your client deferring a decision in that regard
- our client will not be saying anything between now and the 9 March deadline you have mentioned which he
has not already made clear to your client, namely that he categorically denies any allegation of wrongdoing
and that any apparent financial discrepancies are a direct result of a computer system which does not function
correctly.
Yours faithfully,
ROWE COHEN
Partners: SE. Dwek + A. Farley « A Sacks » A."Tplor » R. Atha yo
M.C Woodall © RJ. Sproston » S, Room ~ A. Gurwen * RJ. Myer « D. Vane Aesoeiates: LE Swerling « ADD. Ovens « S.P Sutton » M. Molloy Commultast: MT: Horwich ‘
Pao gutta by the Lane Sis Sa
CfaRAT WBBEYCASTLETONGWO0S LETTER TO OND FEARCE INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
Also at London
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
aura Branton - Re: Marine Drive/Lee Castleton FAD213/337
maaan assert a os ‘sn a
From: <cheryl.woodward_
To: “Laura Branton"
Date: 22/02/2005 08:40
Subject: Re: Marine Drive/Lee Castleton FAD213/337
Hi Laura,
We will await a response from Mr Castleton before going any further.
Thanks Cheryl.
FE CORSO GARICI GORGE SI CSI SSRI ISI III IASI I I II I KIKI KICK DK AA ICE
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.
JOSE RI SIE OE IE GE GE DIES BE ISIS CRS OASIS ICI ICIS ICICI ACK KAA ACA
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2... 23/02/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
21 February 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We confirm receipt of your letter dated 18 February and note that you have received the
papers.
We appreciate that your client will require some time to peruse the papers and are
recommending to our client that they should delay issuing proceedings until your client is
able to respond to us, following analysis of the papers.
We propose that this should be undertaken within a reasonable timescale and would be
grateful to receive your response in this regard by 9 March 2005.
Yours faithfully
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address. Regulated by the Law Society.www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
[Laura Branton - Marine Drive/Lee Castleton FAD213/337 _. a : Page 1 I
om: Laura Branton
10: cheryl.woodward:
Date: 21 February 2005 2:36pini
Subject: Marine Drive/Lee Castleton FAD213/337,
Dear Cheryl
I can confirm that I have copied the relevant documents and forwarded them to the debtor's solicitor
as requested. They have asked that we confirm our position on whether it is your intention to issue
proceedings imminently.
I would not propose taking such drastic action until we have had some feedback from the debtor
(provided it is within a reasonable time of course). I would be grateful to receive your comments on
this.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 18 February 2005
Your ref: LRB1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Pl 2 ask for: Mark Turner.
Direct dial: >
Direct fax : i G RO i
E-mail:
Ms Laura Branton
Bond Pearce
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your client: Post Office Limited
Thank you for your letter of 16 February with enclosures, receipt of which is acknowledged.
We have forwarded the documents to our client. As and when we have had an opportunity to discuss them
with him, and whether there are further documents in your client’s possession of which we require disclosure,
we shall revert to you.
We note your client’s position in relation to the alleged shortfall and the operation of the Horizon system. For
the complete avoidance of doubt, our client disputes both of this assertions. We shall deal with these in more
detail at a later date.
In the meantime, given your client’s position, please confirm whether it is your client’s intention to institute
proceedings against our client to recover the alleged shortfall and, if it is, within what timescale service of the
proceedings is expected to take place.
Yours faithfully
"ROWE COHEN
oewich + UN, Lewis + MX Hymanson © ns + JNEDwek + A. Farley + Ae Sucks © A Taylor © R, Atha -
ton » S. Ronin # A. Curwen « RJ. Myer © D. Yayo Associates: LE Si ‘SR Sutton « M. Molloy Congutamt: M'T: Horwich }
‘Aso at Londow ‘ata aaney cAPTLETONURODS LETTER 10 BOND PEARCE INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00083351
POL00083351
16 February 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL 3AE
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We write further to our letter dated 11 February and subsequent telephone conversation
with your client and your Mark Turner.
We enclose the following papers for your client's perusal:
1. Cash Account (Final) Weeks 39 - 52 inclusive. (including Postage Labels, PO
Encashed, Working Family/Disabled Persons/IR Child Benefit & Green/Violet
Girocheques for each respective week)
2. Cash on Hand/Declared Cash & Weekly Cash Floor Weeks 39-50 inclusive. Please
note that we have requested Week 51 & 52 from our client today and will forward
copies in due course.
3. Giro Deposit/Withdrawals Weeks 39-50 inclusive. Week 51 & 52 to follow in due
course.
Your client will be best placed to advise if any further evidence is required but we confirm
that copies of all relevant correspondence forwarded to us by our client have been provided
to you.
We confirm that our client believes the sum of £25858.95 remains outstanding due to
discrepancies on the account and that our client believes the Horizon system was working
properly.
Clearly, your client will require time in order to scrutinize the papers provided to him and we
would be grateful to receive a further update from you as soon as this is practical.
We trust this is in order and would be grateful if you would acknowledge safe receipt of
these papers.
Yours faithfully
Enclosures
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
[Laura Branton - Lee Castleton FAD 213/337 _ ___ Page 1)
m:
To:
Date: 15 February :37pI
Subject: Lee Castleton FAD 213/337
Dear Lesley
Thank you for forwarding the papers to me. I have reviewed the files and note that in receipt of the
receipt type documents, there are no receipts for week 51 and 52. Have they been retained for any
reason do you know?
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
POL00083351
POL00083351
PAGE: 81
14-82-85 15:57 FROM: MARINE+DRIVE+PO!
fax To Ma Mate Toes.
AEE CasTi€ions .
Rec MOT, I\\ Teo
Soeey IL fexaot To usr THE PaPeeoe I
Weve LiKe REUuASEO Fo THE Bsr office.
eDany CASH OLeLARATIONS fea THE FEt0d Wk 3470 wk 52
OF THE Myr OFEE ACCOonT IG SNSEM.
e-Tany RBarace SlaeSdorS TiGupi cX« LuESINSE SvaPsdors Cor
2
THE PEtOD Wee S4 me OF THE Rr offer ACCOUNTING FERIOe,
ge LKERY TRIAL AND Finite RAAKE PREMRS Fee THE ABovE Petal)
pe Gido Cade DALY RERRTS FER THE Abouk ERi0Q DeRe57s ANO ulridthas
e— Avtomareg Runt Sysren Dai Reteers Foe THE ASour e200,
@— Nanowar SAVINGS ALO LavEsTramnrs Dany ReRers Ge Tad About
(EQOD. Deroric avd WirMawaLs,
e~ PERora Ravkile REDS Dat Rd oor FER THE ABou< Brad,
o- CHEQUE LiSrmiGS DAMN. FOR THK AGovk F200,
ee TV bickence ListidG® . DAH. FoR THE ABouz PROD,
a I WEE RIM GRgan Emo Refrry Forte AGu< PKEt0O,
o- Fos Canes Keen Remery FR THES Bor Frac,
@- WEEKLY TuAnD Revue ReRers FoR uc ABue Peed
@ PReasioos AIO AOvAwcKES WeeKit Remers FR THE AGOIE
Peuoo.
eo Room TRA oe THe OHO OF THE ABOVE Reid,
11 February 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Our ref:
LRB1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT.113969
Dear Sirs
Our Client - Post Office Limited
We thank you for your letter dated 8 February 2005.
We confirm that our client has confirmed the original papers were forwarded to us by special
delivery yesterday and we anticipate delivery by 12pm today.
We confirm that papers will be forwarded to you by 15 February 2005 as requested.
In the meantime, we confirm Mr Castleton has contacted our Laura Branton for an update
and this information has been passed on to him. We trust this is in order.
Yours faithfully
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address, Regulated by the Law Society.www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
POL00083351
Date: 8 February 2005
Our ref: MDT.113969
tease ask for:
Dire tal:
Direct fax :
E-mail:
ROWE COHEN
52 x3
Ms Laura Branton.
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
Bristol Bridge House
Redcliff Street
Bristol
BS1 6BJ
Dear Sirs
Our client: Mr L Castleton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
We act on behalf of Mr Castleton an understand that you are instructed on behalf of the Post Office.
We have seen a copy of our client’s letter to your firm dated 18 January 2005. We understand that you have
contacted our client to indicate that you are seeking instructions from your client on the request for the return
of the documentation specified in our client’s letter, but that as things stand you have not been able to make
any substantive progress.
Your client has, in effect, accused our client of at best negligence and at worst outright theft and falsification
of the accounts for the post office which he previously ran. Our client requires sight of the various documents
set out in his letter in order to be able io demonstrate, as he has maintained throughout, that the problem lies
with the computer system installed by your client rather than through any negligence on wrongdoing on his
part. As a result of your client’s accusations, our client has been suspended and has been forced to remove
himself from the running of the post office.
As we understand it, you do not oppose in principle the return of the documents in question to our client. In
those circumstances, we fail to see why it is taking so long to release them. We have no wish to have to waste
court time and incur needless expense in pursuing an application for pre-action disclosure, a view which we
are sure you will share.
We therefore look forward to hearing from you within the next 7 days with substantive proposals to make
available to our client the documentation which he requested and of which is manifestly entitled to sight.
We look forward to hearing from you.
. Yours faithfully
ROWE COHE)
1. Duck » A. Facey + ALS * A.‘iglor © R. Ache va
‘Sutton © M. Mollay Consultants MT. Horwich ff
Ld
‘ostanervsme ie ASTLETONCD LETER TO ROND EASE INVESTOR IN PEOPLE,
POL00083351
POL00083351
‘Laura Branton - Lee Castleton FAD 213/337 __ . . . _____ Page 1 I
m: Laura Bran
Jo: lesley joyce_ .
Date: 08 February 2005 3:59pm
Subject: Lee Castleton FAD 213/337
Dear Lesley
Further to our telephone conversation, I would be grateful if you would provide copies of
correspondence that was removed from Mr Castleton's post office at the time of his termination. I do
not require copies of correspondence at present if that helps!
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Web: www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Lesley Joyce
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 8 February 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT and then Attending IN.
Being told that she has the file and will arrange to send copies of correspondence to me. LRB confirming that at
present she only requires correspondence that was removed from Mr Castleton's post office at the time of termination
of his employment. LJ advising there is a considerable amount of correspondence after this.
LRB confirming she would forward an e-mail to her with contact details.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 1
Laura Branton - Re: Lee Castleton FAD 213 337
(esses nS Sli SSS Peis ssi SN
From: <cheryl.woodward.
To: “Laura Branton"
Date: 04/02/2005 10:27
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton FAD 213 337
Hi Laura,
Lesley's contact numbers are I GRO iher address is
Darlington Area Office ~
Crown Street
Darlington
DL1 1AB
The problem with the Easy Access account was the cheque had been made out
the Customer rather than National Savings this was not an Horizon Error.
Hope this helps.
Thanks Cheryl.
FEC CSOSA SOI SISOS SO SISOS IGRI ISOS SIS AIBI CSI IIIA I IASI I AGIA
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.
JE EOI SEI SEI OIE ORIG ECE BIE OSES ORO ISO ICIS ISIE ODIO ICICI OKADA OK ADI OK OK
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2... 07/02/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
I Laura Branton - Lee Castleton FAD 213 337 _ - “Page 1
om: Laura Branton ;.
To: cheryl.woodwar
Date: 04 February 2005 9:54am
Subject: Lee Castleton FAD 213 337
Dear Cheryl
I had an opportunity to speak with Cath yesterday and she has confirmed that all papers removed from
Marine Drive PO are with Lesley Joyce. Would you please advise if it would be possible to obtain
copies of this correspondence or would you prefer for me to contact Lesley?
On the matter of the error on the “easy access" account for Mrs Constable. I would be grateful if you
would advise what the outcome of that investigation was. I note that Mrs Constable has reimbursed
you but is there an explanation for this happening in the first place? I think Mr Castleton believes that
if it was possible for this to happen, it reinforces his allegation the system was not operating correctly.
This is of course conflicted by Horizon who confirm that the software and hardware does not have a
fault.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
POL00083351
POL00083351
A a
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Lee Castleton
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 4 February 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending IN.
LRB confirming that she is trying to obtain papers from PO, LRB discussing the claim generally with Mr C and asking if
he thought Mrs C cheque was as a consequence of his allegations about the horizon system. Mr C advising this is
unrelated. The point he was making is that it was processed as an error on his account and he wanted it removed.
Mr C also making reference to the lottery discrepancy of £176. This should be removed because the error occurred on
the day he was suspended.
LRB confirming as soon as she received some papers she will contact him.
PSs, Pape recs. UPS Ce nn Ae CAA
CHA US ery arwre.
LES (alos,
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Cath Oglsby
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 3 February 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT and leaving message.
Attending IN.
Being told that the papers were removed so that the Post Office has copies of everything and to preserve the
evidence. All papers are held by Leslev.lovce.at.Narlington. LRB asking if I could contact her direct and being told it
was ok. Her e-mail is Lesley. joyce '
CO advising that she is unable to provide any further paperwork and recommending that I speak with Lesley. LRB
asking whether she thought any of the evidence supplied by Horizon was sensitive/confidential and should not be
forwarded to Mr C. CO advising not. LRB asking if there was an explanation with the "easy access" confusion/Mrs
Constable. CO advising she vaguely remembered but could not recall what the outcome was. CO suggesting I speak
with Cheryl Woodward about this.
Being told that if I have any further queries, I could contact her but that Lesley would be the best person to speak with
about documents.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Mr Castleton
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 3 February 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT.
LRB advising that she is unable to respond to him as promised and was calling as a courtesy to confirm that the
matter is being thoroughly investigated. Mr C being happy with that.
On reading Mr C's letter LRB checking that Mr C actually requires audit trail and asking for what period. Being told he
requires from Week 39 of 2003 to Week 2 of 2004. He would also like to have the full account summary (ie snapshots
etc) during that period. He did have it but Cath Oglesby removed them when she audited his accounts. LRB
confirming she would see what she could do.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Cheryl
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 3 February 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT.
being told that I can contact Cathy direct to obtain papers. LRB asking if she thought any of the Horizon evidence was
confidential in case Mr C wanted copies. Being told she thought it would be ok to release but asking that I check with
Cathy beforehand.
POL00083351
POL00083351
28 January 2005 Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Ms Mandy Talbot
Legal Services
Royal Mail
Impact House
2 Edridge Road
Croydon, CR9 1PJ LRB1/348035,134
Your ref:
Dear Mandy
Lee Castleton
Please find enclosed a copies of a letter received from Lee Castleton and our holding response for your
information.
I can confirm that I am currently investigating this matter with Chery! Woodward at Chesterfield and will
ensure that all correspondence is copied to you so that you are fully aware of the situation.
Yours sincerely
Laura Branton
Credit Management Services
Enclosures
1. Letter received from Lee Castleton dated 18 January 2005
2. Copy response to Lee Castleton, Former Sub postmaster at Marine Drive Post Office (FAD: 213
337)
A list of partners of Bond Pearce is open for inspection at the above address. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Ian Jones
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 28 January 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending Ian Jones IN.
Being told that he has spoken with the Retail Line Manager and will be sending all of the proof that the software was
checked to me.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Cheryl
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 28 January 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending OUT Cheryl. Being told she is out and speaking with Ian. LRB confirming the current situation and being
told that he will investigate the matter for me as he is not sure wheth I will be back by Monday. LRB asking if
he has a contact number for Mr C on file and being told he does. Tel
GRO
Attending OUT Mr C.
Being told by Mrs C that her husband is collecting their children from school. LRB not going into too much details but
confirming that she is sending a letter today but just giving them a courtesy call as more than 7 days have elapsed
from the date of his letter. Being told that her husband saw a solicitor yesterday so we may receive a letter from
them next week.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Telephone attendance
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton - DEBT £27115.83 Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Stephen Lister
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A Date: 28 January 2005
Start time: N/A Units: N/A
Attending Stephen IN.
LRB confirming that she has read the letter and received the original. LRB confirming LBA has been issued and she
noted from the file that I should notifiy the POL Horizon Liaison Manager before considering issue of proceedings.
LRB confirming that there was a problem with an "easy access" account and that is the grounds of Mr C's concerns
that the system was failing. She tried to open an a/c and paid the cheque in. The cheque was returned to her but her
account was showing the full balance. I have since received an e-mail from Cheryl to advise £1256.88 had been
reimbursed by Mrs Constable.
LRB confirming that she would be checking with Cheryl but agreed to send a holding letter to Mr C in the meantime.
SL asking that I copy Mandy Talbot in aswell.
POL00083351
POL00083351
I Laura Branton - Lee Castleton . Page 4 I
Pom Laura Branton
To: Stephen Lister
Date: 27 January 2005 11:57am
Subject: Lee Castleton
Hello Stephen
I have not yet received a copy of the letter you referred to in your e-mail 24/1/05. Has it been sent yet?
Many thanks, Laura
POL00083351
POL00083351
mM, L. Castes
ihe Sworn MAQWlé Dee,
SOLE TON,
EAST Yo KSHME
Yo15 306.
Dear Ne kesree (PTasuney cles
Dan Som te have fe corike tS You
before. yoo Rave had chance be wre te meyse(f. Bot
ad Tam soe yo ae quan DT have beer oaihiy
L, Sone Foret of action /halp (or Over One Year Rod,
Tam Akay be yoo ak Be a copy om Oe
orguals oy the Poperwock revtorad Cron Cher Ry
Olfice ah Marne Drwe Brdlerglea on Cre IO Moy On
by Abs Cath Oglesby, Rar Office Retail bane Menrerger
The Paperrerk Lrowlel negale Che recal +e go fe
Coork as Uk would ollecs me on Gon yonekon eet
Papericach L alwad. hoe. be peve He compoler
(cuelh al thes (esr Office bekoeern wireelen BV te SZ bs
of the pes Offece Cuccasnkeag calender Over the paar
rtonths Cheryl LJewcuarl of Ted OlGce Lh cheslerf-old
hes wrllen fe Awa Offrce te Pecre this Papers
be fe ne aval, LT do ner ondersand or Comprehorel
the aren (c- ug. Sorely nobel, ok Ry Of frce. kk
Laks fe waske The Kure of a ery busy lel
POL00083351
POL00083351
S plemn encdk Gorden Che con-hy Uth this
male, (oold T alse file Cura tee bax fl
om copy of the Acdi Tal produced by Cis ffs
over thin periok. This wold also aid cn Che
Gr ponliag ob Gre computer faut sffeed ak
thie Sbrca over Uva period.
—
T musk Rosewer tele Cees Kin by org.
Yoo arc UYpor chenk fo atk ad these clocument
weld atlees all Uwelved fo expedite This malter
Tt ts nev one year Cro Che. orginal Computer
Cot there ore T weoth ask for The Paperwork
be uxeth me WA Seven Gays or Propese he
Make an order ct pre—action chisclesore of
documents fo the couch Ths aclior would of
Course. Weer exRonse te meysel and ey foley,
to which T watt look fo pass on fe your chesl.
Tam Soe thal Wwe can pe Dr ese reh cA
Cespeck fe This matter and F (eke Coral
Yoor Bplay.
GRO
POL00083351
POL00083351
2085 12:38 FROM P.81
Band farce
Bond Pearce
Bristol Bridge House
Redcliff Street
Bristol BS1 6B)
yN
Fax ACTIC
“¢ ¥S
Ue ay of thie fax i missing or Heabie COPY
please ephane fe numer bee
To; Laura Branton Bond Pearce Plymouth
ce: Your ref:
From: Stephen Lister Our ref: SMLI/RQ1/348035.1
Date Created: 27 January 2005
Number of pages: 3
Correspondence
Please find correspondence attached.
Ad Sty re 2811 (Oo
Ls 2a[i[os :
SS Py OR me Cert Back.
Confidentiatity notice
IMPORTANT ~ The information In this fax Is configentis! and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not use, disclose, copy or distribute its contents. Instead, please notify the sender as soon
88 possible and destroy the fax..
4 list of partners of Bond Peerce Is open for inspection at the abave address, Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
4A 62179414
POL00083351
penne POL00083351
2025 12:38 FROM of "GRO ae
MM, Lb. Cason
he Sour MAlis& uk,
BROWNE THA,
AST Yo KiSHME
Yo1s 308.
Dear Ne liste, I BS Tauwaey oF,
Dam Sorry te have be wrike Kh yoo
before yoo have had charce fe wre le muyse(. Bur
a> T an Sure you Ge Gwae LDL heave been ahi
ee)
BR, Sorte. Cone of achion /help Cor Over One Year Rout,
orgurets a the Poperweck euored Con thes Fey
Olfice ah Marne Deve Brdlinglen on Bre lo Hox, On
The. Papers could negate Gre raced fe go fs
Cosrk as UF wecld ollocs me On con yorckon Le
Paperiachk LT alr hove. fe prove. the conprler
(euabh ak Ges for Office Gekveen wteckan 37 f Sz py
of the pesr Office cuccoankeag Calender Over the paar
Morcths Cheryl Woodard of TBI Offce Lh cheslef-eld
hes writen ke Awa Office fe Ceure this Paper :
ber ke ne aval. DL do nol onderdand or mS
the aren (o- Gua. Sorel, roa at Oy bff i
LWanks te waske The Torte. of Vern bose leno
POL00083351
POL00083351
vow ee teow RRUM
to ¢'G
alk (Coold T olso fa ths tae f arh-
o copy of the Audit Trait produced by Chin fun
over thin periok. This would ales aid cn the
this Shee over Uva perod.
P83
TL norsk Rovewer telke hes Kouwe bes Ory.
yer arc Usur Clrenk fe ack ad these clocument
woulk aller all Uwolved fo expedite Tid Maller
Tes nov one Year Cro the. ongqual Com polar
Couth therellore TL weold ark Ce the Papenwok
be rth me nr Seven Gays eo LT Prepese te
Mole an order of e%—ackon use losure of
documents fo the toork. This aches wovld of
Course. Weer expense 16 myself ond ay fie.
to which T ou look fo Peas 07 f wove Chea,
Tae Sore thal Wwe Can Mee Desa reh cn
Cexpock fo Duis mutter and F look Cruck
Your eply.
emme
POL00083351
POL00083351
[Laura Branton - Lee Castieton
7
Page 1 I
m: Stephen Lister
To: Laura Branton
Date: 24 January 2005 6:19pm
Subject: Lee Castleton
Laura,
I have received a letter from Mr C which I shall fax to you.
Could we briefly discuss once you've read it?
Thanks
Stephen
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 2
‘aura Branton - Re: Lee Castleton - LIT/247310 FAD213/337 (Marine
“ti 2PO)
_ ser EAs REGED RU ANSARI THT nc ene SE
From: <cheryl.woodwart
To: “Laura Branton"
Date: 17/01/2005 09:
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton - LIT/247310 FAD213/337 (Marine Drive PO)
Hi Laura,
Today I have received a cheque from Mrs Constable for £1256.88 in relation
to the easy access account.
Hoping the letter to Mr Castleton has not been sent yet.
Thanks Cheryl.
“Laura Branto!
. GRO. a ce: Te ~
Subject: Lee Castleton - LIT/247310 FAD213/337 (Marine
13/01/2005 10:14 Drive PO)
Dear Cheryl
I have today received this file from my colleague Stephen Lister. You
have asked that a letter before action is sent to Mr Castleton and that
I should notify the POL Horizon Liaison Manager before considering the
issue of proceedings. I would be grateful if you would provide me with
contact details.
I have read through the file and cannot see that his query has been
resolved in connection with the "Easy Access" account for Mrs Constable.
Do you know if it has been possible to shed any light on this. I
propose to send a details letter before action and it would be helpful
if I could also make reference to this.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1i 3AE
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2..._ 21/01/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 1 of 2
aura Branton - Re: Lee Castleton - LIT/247310 FAD213/337 (Marine
ur» PO)
From: <cheryl.woodward¢
To: "Laura Branton";
Date: 15/01/2005 22:37
Subject: Re: Lee Castleton - LIT/247310 FAD213/337 (Marine Drive PO)
Hi Laura,
I note from your e-mail that the POL Horizon Liaison Manager be notified
before considering proceedings. I'm not sure where that has come from
possibly our Legal Advisors who pass the case onto you?
The query with the Easy Access Account has been resolved as far as the duty
holder is concerned. Mr Castleton has been told he has to pursue this
through the customer as he sent the application off himself.
Sorry to be vague I hope this helps. Thanks Cheryl.
ce:
Subject: Lee Castleton - LIT/247310 FAD213/337
(Marine
13/01/2005 10:14 Drive PO)
Dear Cheryl
I have today received this file from my colleague Stephen Lister. You
have asked that a letter before action is sent to Mr Castleton and that
I should notify the POL Horizon Liaison Manager before considering the
issue of proceedings. I would be grateful if you would provide me with
contact details.
I have read through the file and cannot see that his query has been
resolved in connection with the "Easy Access" account for Mrs Constable.
Do you know if it has been possible to shed any light on this. I
propose to send a details letter before action and it would be helpful
if I could also make reference to this.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2... 25/01/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
Page 2 of 2
Bond Pearce
al’ 4 House
Wes Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
IMPORTANT - The information in this e-mail message is confidential and may
be legally privileged and protected by law. The intended recipient only is
authorised to access it. 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. Bond Pearce is regulated by the Law Society. A
list of the names of Partners in the firm can be inspected at Bond Pearce,
Ballard House, West Hoe Road, Plymouth, PL1 3AE or any of our other
offices, and at http://www.bondpearce.com.
FEO CACO ASCO ICCA SEOI SCO ISSCI ISI ARIS I IK ICI KEK ICICK IK a AE
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,
FESO SSIS OBE ICSE E OES AS ESI IESE AI ALIAS A ACI ICICI IGA A CAAA
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2... 25/01/2005
POL00083351
POL00083351
aura Branton - Lee Castleton - LIT/247310 FAD213/337 (Marine Drive PO) - “ “ Page 1 I
am: Laura Branton
To: cheryl.woodward!_
Date: 13 January 2005 10:
Subject: Lee Castleton - LIT/247310 FAD213/337 (Marine Drive PO)
Dear Cheryl
I have today received this file from my colleague Stephen Lister. You have asked that a letter before
action is sent to Mr Castleton and that I should notify the POL Horizon Liaison Manager before
considering the issue of proceedings. I would be grateful if you would provide me with contact details.
I have read through the file and cannot see that his query has been resolved in connection with the
“Easy Access" account for Mrs Constable. Do you know if it has been possible to shed any light on
this. I propose to send a details letter before action and it would be helpful if I could also make
reference to this.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Kind regards.
Laura Branton AICM (Cert)
Paralegal
Credit Management Services
Bond Pearce
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Web: www. bondpéarce cont
Work Chit
POL00083351
POL00083351
Client: Post Office Limited
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton
Attending: N/A]
Matter no: 348035.castleto
Name: Laura Branton Location: N/A
Start time: Units: 0 units
Date:
Carrying out conflict check on file. No conflicts found.
POL00083351
POL00083351
Catherine Churchard LLB
itor & Legal Services Director
07 January 2005
Mr Stephen Lister Legal Services
Messrs Bond Pearce Solicitors Royal Mail Group Pic
Bristol Bridge House Impact House
Redcliff Street 2 Edridge Road
BRISTOL CROYDON
BS1 6BJ CRO 1PJ
Dear Stephen
RE: NEW CASE(S)
POLS REFERENCE CASE TITLE CASE CLASSIFICATION
LIT/247310 MR LEE CASTLETON FSP/DEBT
I enclose original papers concerning the above matter.
As the Postmaster is making allegations that the Horizon System was not
working, you will have to notify the POL Horizon Liaison Manager of this case
before considering the issue of proceedings.
Please seek instructions directly from the client department.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Smith
Litigation Administrator
UAWINWORD\Miscellaneous\RML.doc
© Royal Mail 2002 ~ Page 1 of 1
Royal Mail is a trading name of Royal Meil Group plc. Registered number 4138203,
Registered in England and Wales, Registered office: 148 Old Street, LONDON, ECIV 9HA.
POL00083351
__PoL00083351
ivlemo
3 November 2004
Royal Mail
The Real Network
Ms Cheryl Woodward Legal Services
Agents Debt Team 3 Royal Mail Group Plc
First Floor East Impact House
No.1 Future Walk P .
CHESTERFIELD 2 Edridge Road I
49 1PF CROYDON
CR9 1PJ
Postline:
Dear Ms Woodward
Subject: MR LEE CASTLETON
Our Ref: LIT/247310/XBLB
Your Ref: FAD CODE 213 337
Thank you for your letter together with papers in respect of the above matter.
Please note that due to the increased workload in this department, the above
named case is currently being forwarded to our agents Mr Stephen Lister of
Messrs Bond Pearce Solicitors, Bristol.
Our solicitor agents will be contacting you in the near future. Please ensure that
all future correspondence is addressed to them.
Yours sincerely
Litigation Division
© Royal Mail 2002 —- Page 1 of 1
Royal Mall is a trading name of Consignia ple, Registered number 4138203
Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
POL00083351
POL00083351
FILE FACING SHEET
CASE NO: 247310/XBLB
CASE TITLE: CASTLETON Lee
CLIENT: Post Office Ltd
DATE EVENT I
Letter of claim received
7 January 2005 Passed to Team Leader for allocation
7 January 2005 Case allocated and passed to caseholder
Letter of acknowledgment
Formal response to letter of claim