POL00158577
POL00158577
Mandy - I also would support your recommendations - your closing paragraph
below captured it very well. This should be a considerable addition to
our armoury in responding to the number of other cases that may have been
stirred up by Mr Castleton's letters into the Subpostmaster magazine. One
letter tried to get something like "class actions". He certainly had
other agents writing in to reply to him and suggesting more cases.
Thanks, Rod
" the trial is still a little while off and I think that we should
aim for Castleton agreeing for judgement to be entered against him in the
full amount plus an agreement that he will consent to the payment of a
fixed sum in respect of costs. As a trade off we can offer the letter
confirming that there was no dishonesty and agree that we will not seek
interest at an indemnity level. The benefit of having a judgement against
him in the full amount is that we will be able to use this to demonstrate
to the network that despite his allegations about HORIZON we were able to
recover the full amount from him. It will be of tremendous use in
convincing other postmasters to think twice about their allegations......
Rod Ismay.:Post.Qffice Ltd - Head of Product & Branch Accountini
Postline:__GRO I / Mobile: i/ External
No 1 Future Walk, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF
P&BA. ervicing today's clients to win tomorrow's new business
Richard W Barker
09/11/2006 22:15
To: Mandy Talbot/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: Biddy Wyles/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Clare
Wardle/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, David X Smith/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
John D Cole/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Keith K
Baines/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Marie Cockett/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Rod
Ismay/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Re: Castleton - Marine Drive URGENT URGENT URGENT
Mandy
I am happy to be guided by your recommendations.
Richard Barker
Acting Network Director
Post Office Ltd
5th Floor, Post Office Ltd, 80 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9PP
Mandy Talbot
09/11/2006 10:40
POL00158577
POL00158577
To: Marie Cockett/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, John D
Cole/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Keith K Baines/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
David X Smith/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Richard W
Barker/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Rod Ismay/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: Clare Wardle/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Biddy
Wyles/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Castleton - Marine Drive URGENT URGENT URGENT
I have received some very good news about this case but now need the
business to make an urgent decision upon its future conduct.
Our original claim against Castleton was in the region of 25K and he then
entered a defence and counter claim for 250K but of more concern brought
the whole validity of the HORIZON system into question. As a result we
have expended a lot of legal costs to ensure that the defence to those
allegations is as perfect as possible.
On Friday Castleton's solicitors amended their defence/ counterclaim to
reduce their counter claim to 11K.
Last night our barrister received a compromise offer from Castleton's
solicitors probably brought on by the fact that they are obliged to serve
their statements on Friday together with their accountants report. We
suspect that their accountants report has not supported their claim.
The bare offer is as follows
they offer the sum of £22,350 in settlement of our claim
our costs on the standard basis
they want us to agree to pay rent or get the temp to pay rent for the
continued occupancy of Marine Drive
they want us to pay the wages of the assistant employed there
they want a letter from us stating that proceedings were issued purely to
recover a debt and that there was no allegation of dishonesty
We can respond in a number of ways.
Firstly I think that we can all agree that their demand at 3 and 4 cannot
be accepted because rent and wages are a matter for Castleton to resolve
with the current interim postmaster or possibly the previous interim
postmaster as I understand that there have been more than one of them.
Secondly as we have never pleaded that Castleton was dishonest there is no
problem with us agreeing to this demand. We believe that he is seeking to
go back to work in the city and as such a statement from us could be very
valuable to him.
Thirdly the offer is defective in that it does not mention interest at all
which we are entitled to on the debt
Fourthly no offer has been made to give a declaration to the effect that
he withdraws all his allegations about
the HORIZON system
Fifthly as we made a Part 36 offer to him in January of 2006 stating that
if he would pay our full claim we would not seek our costs which he
rejected ,he is now obliged to pay our costs on the indemnity not the
standard basis since that date. If costs are awarded on the standard basis
then traditionally the successful party would recover between 60 -65% of
the costs expended. Any dispute is resolved in favour of the paying party.
Costs on the indemnity basis means one recovers almost all of ones costs
and any dispute is resolved in favour of the receiving party. So there is
quite a difference between the two.
Sixthly the reason given for not paying the full amount of the claim is
spurious as we have demonstrated to them on a number of occasion that
there is no basis for their allegation that the accounts were £3,509.18
short on week 49.
Seventhly the position in respect of costs is not as clear cut as it
appears at first because the Courts have an ability to cap the amount of
costs awarded so as to make them proportionate to the size of the claim.
However they have to take a number of factors into consideration not
merely the size of the claim but the conduct of the parties, ours has been
impeccable, the importance of the issues to the parties, proportionality
of the costs incurred to the size of the claim has however been emphasised
in a recent Court of Appeal decision. Therefore there is a risk that by
rejecting an offer of standard costs that the Court could decide to cap
the costs at say 60K and then award only 60% of that. Costs to date
including the work in progress and the work which the accountants have
done together with Counsel's fees come to approximately 140K.
However the trial is still a little while off and I think that we should
aim for Castleton agreeing for judgement to be entered against him in the
full amount plus an agreement that he will consent to the payment of a
fixed sum in respect of costs. As a trade off we can offer the letter
confirming that there was no dishonesty and agree that we will not seek
interest at an indemnity level. The benefit of having a judgement against
him in the full amount is that we will be able to use this to demonstrate
to the network that despite his allegations about HORIZON we were able to
recover the full amount from him. It will be of tremendous use in
convincing other postmasters to think twice about their allegations.
Even if such a counter offer is rejected we still have time to negotiate
but as we move nearer to the trial date more costs are incurred daily so
it is very important that we reach a decision and communicate it to our
external solicitor this morning if possible.
Please may I hear from you by e-mail or telephone as soon as possible
Regards
Mandy Talbot
Dispute Resolution
Company Secretary's Office
Royal Mail Legal Services
148 Old Street
London EC1V 9HQ
Postline:
POL00158577
POL00158577
POL00158577
POL00158577