1.
WBONO0000023
WBON0000023
POST OFFICE LIMITED
ADVICE
Following judgment in Post Office Limited —v- Castleton 1 have been asked to
provide a short written advice on the key points that have emerged from my
involvement in the case as a whole and that judgment in particular. I should
emphasise that this Advice has been written as a short preliminary overview and
should not be relied upon as providing a final and definitive consideration of all steps
that should be taken in order to ensure that the Post Office derives maximum
advantage from the judgment.
. The first point is that it is easier to sue a sub-postmaster on an account produced by
him than try to prove that a loss has arisen in the business. Trying to prove such a
loss, if it is possible at all, is extremely difficult forensically and will inevitably be
expensive and time-consuming.
. The second point is that the Post Office derives a significant advantage in litigation if
the sub-postmaster bears the burden of proof to show that the account sued on by the
Post Office, such as the Cash Account (Final), is wrong, rather than the Post Office
having to prove that the account sued on is right.
. This reversal of the burden of proof can only occur if the Post Office is suing on the
sub-postmaster’s own account, i.e. on a formal account produced by the sub-
postmaster and tendered by him to the Post Office as his confirmed statement of the
trading that has occurred.
WBON0000023
WBON0000023
5. As such, a Cash Account (Final) (or any other account produced by a sub-postmaster)
is only likely to be treated as a final account for a given period if it is (i) produced by
the sub-postmaster (ii) at least in circumstances where he is contractually required to
produce and verify the figures as accurate, but preferably where he formally certifies
the figures as such, and (iii) where the sub-postmaster physically signs off the
accounts as such, alternatively signs electronically.
6. The third and final point is that if and when it is decided that a sub-postmaster is to be
suspended or removed from post, he should be required, in accordance with the terms
of his contract, to produce and sign a final account to the date of his removal, whether
or not the Post Office has conducted its own audit. The purpose of requiring this is
simply to rely on the reversal of the burden of proof and remove the necessity (though
not the desirability) of having to call the auditors to prove the loss.
7. I trust that this short Advice provides sufficient overview for present purposes, but I
should be happy to provide such further assistance as may be required.
RICHARD MORGAN
Maitland Chambers,
7 Stone Buildings,
Lincoln’s Inn,
London WC2A 3SZ.
WBON0000023
WBON0000023
POST OFFICE LIMITED
ADVICE
BOND PEARCE LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Ref: HR1.348035.134