POL00113911
POL00113911
‘Richard Morgan"
Subject: Castleton
Dear Mandy,
Please see below from Castleton's solicitor. I have spoken to him and chased
him to sign the consent order. He is going to call Mr Castleton's GP today to
check that Castleton has the mental capacity to give him instructions at the
time of their without prejudice save as to costs letter dated 10 November. He
will then update me.
In view of settlement discussions, we have deliberately paused on trial
preparation to minimise costs. However, unless we receive a signed Consent
Order today I reluctantly think we must gear up to trial so that we are ina
position to proceed in December.
For what it is worth, I think this case will almost certainly settle shortly,
but there is no absolute guarantee.
I will update you when I hear further.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
Main office phone.
Fax: L_. GRO
www.bondpearce.com
I Original Message
From: M.Turner(
Sent: 17 November 2006 10
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: RE: Post Office -v- Castleton
1
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Dilley
I refer to your voicemail message left yesterday evening.
I tried to speak to my client yesterday but was again unable to do so.
I am now endeavouring to speak to his GP directly as a matter of urgency to
find out what the position is regarding his medical condition and whether or
not it can properly be said to imapair his ability to provide me with
instructions.
I am very conscious of the issue of your counsel's brief fee and the need to
conclude this matter at the very earliest opportunity. I will hopefully be
able to revert to you later today.
Regards,
Mark Turner
Solicitor
Commercial Group
POL00113911
POL00113911
POL00113911
POL00113911
Rowe Cohen Solicitors
From: Stephen Dilley [f°
Sent: 15 November 2006 1
To: Mark Turner
Subject: Post Office -v- Castleton
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Turner,
Thanks for your email of today.
I attach a signed, amended Tomlin Order (3 hard copies to follow by DX) and
can confirm that to settle this today, the P.O is willing in principle to
agree to:
1. The "no dishonesty" suggested wording you put forward in your email below.
This is now incorporated into the Tomlin Order.
2. The suggested wording of the Mr Castleton's letter to the P.O withdrawing
his allegations about Horizon that you put forward on 14 November which
states:
"I, Mr Lee Castleton, the former subpostmaster at Marine Drive Post Office,
Bridlington, fully and unreservedly withdraw the allegations I have made about
the operation of the Horizon system. I undertake not to repeat those
allegations and/or make any further allegations about the Horizon system
and/or its functioning."
This too has been incorporated into the Tomlin Order.
3. Your suggested amendment to the wording of the Tomlin Order i.e the
insertion of the words "except as otherwise previously ordered by the court"
to preserve the costs order being made on the way. 1 have inserted this into
paragraph 3.
I have inserted the dates when Mr Castleton's payment of the claim, interest
and interim costs on account should be made as being Friday 8 December 2006.
This is actually 23 days from today.
We have also calculated interest on the claim to 8 December 2006 (calculations
attached). It is £3,917.42. This figure is incorporated into the Order at
paragraph 2 of the Schedule.
Provided the Tomlin Order is acceptable to Mr Castleton, please sign, date and
return the 3 hard copies as a matter or urgency, or alternatively, please
confirm that you will now file them directly Court for approval and sealing
and ask the Court to vacate the trial date.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and_on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
DD:
Main office phone
POL00113911
POL00113911
POL00113911
POL00113911
To: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Post Office -v- Castleton
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Dilley
I refer to our conversation earlier today. As discussed, I am writing to you
in relation to the proposed wording of the Tomlin Order to settle these
proceedings and the two letters to pass between the parties even though I am
currently without instructions in that regard for the reasons set out in my
earlier e-mail. The proposals put forward in this e-mail are subject to
revision when I am able to speak to my client and obtain his instructions and
are put forward in the meantime at your request and in an effort to try to
move matters along pending my receiving those instructions.
We sent to you yesterday a revised proposed form of wording in terms of the
confirmation to be provided by my client of the withdrawal of his allegations
in relation to Horizon. For the reasons I set out when we spoke, I think it is
almost certain that my client will be unwilling to agree your original
proposed form of wording. I shall give some further thought to whether there
is an "intermediate" form of wording that may be acceptable to both parties
put, as things stand, I do not think it is likely that my client will go so
far as actively confirming that he accepts that the system functions
correctly.
In terms of the letter to be sent by your client in relation to the "no
dishonesty" issue, I would propose (without having had an opportunity to
discuss with my client whether there is any particular form of wording that he
woudl prefer) the following form of wording:
"Phe Post Office confirms that no allegation of dishonesty is or has been made
against Mr Lee Castleton in claim number HQ 05 X 02706, arising from his
tenure as sub-postmaster at Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington. The claim
brought by the Post Office was a claim for Mr Castleton to make good a
shortfall showing in the accounts of the Marine Drive Post Office pursuant to
his contractual obligations."
There is no particular magic to this form of words - the point is merely to
convey that your client has not and does not assert in these proceedings that
Mr Castleton has acted dishonestly. I am happy to discuss an alternative form
of wording if you have an issue with that which is proposed, subject only to
it making clear that particular point.
In relation to your draft Tomlin Order, the only comment I have is that
paragraph 3 of the Order itself should insert (probably after "...and the
Counterclaim") "except as otherwise previously ordered by the court". This
specifically preserves the interim costs orders that have been made along the
way.
As I indicated in my e-mail earlier, I shall endeavour to obtain instructions
from my client on these points as soon as I possibly can.
Regards,
Mark Turner
Solicitor
POL00113911
POL00113911
POL00113911
POL00113911
Commercial Group
Rowe Cohen Solicitors
<font size=1 color=#650012>
DOSES EEC ESO HIE GEE EH SBS ESSE IIIS SSISGSISISOSIS ISI ISSA
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may
contain information that is legally privileged and/or otherwise protected
from disclosure. Tf you are not the intended recipient, any unauthorised use,
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it, or
other use is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this email in
error please contact the sender immediately and delete this email from your
system. Copyright in this email and any attachments created by Rowe Cohen
belongs to Rowe Cohen. The contents of this email may be intercepted monitored
and/or recorded. Neither Rowe Cohen nor the sender accepts any responsibility
for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan the email and any
attachments. If this message is transmitted over the internet be aware that it
may be intercepted by a third party for which Rowe Cohen exclude any liability
in negligence or otherwise.
FAECES ECHOES GSES SEUSS SESH E EEE I ISEB IES IOI IIIS ISSIR
Rowe Cohen
Solicitors
Quay House
Quay Street
Manchester M3_3JE.
Tel:!
Fax: I
Also
Partners:
S.E. Cohen - D.d. Horwich - I.N. Lewis - M.V. Hymanson - G.P. Small -
A. Dennison - B.T. Coghlan - J.V. Dwek A. Farley - A. Sacks - A.
Taylor - M. Woodall - R. Sproston - A. Curwen - S. Room - R. Myer -
H. Burns - S$. Sutton This firm is regulated by the Law Society </font>
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be
legally privileged and protected by law. The intended recipient only is
authorised to access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete
any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or
copying of this communication is prohibited.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus
detection software before transmission. You should carry out your own virus
checks before opening any attachment. Bond Pearce LLP accepts no liability for
any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses.
Bond Pearce LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and
Wales number 0C311430.
Registered Office: 3 Temple Quay, Temple Back East, Bristol, BS1 6DZ.
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Any reference to a
Partner in relation to Bond Pearce LLP means a Member of Bond Pearce LLP. Bond
Pearce LLP is regulated by the Law Society.
POL00113911
POL00113911