Post Office and Fujitsu Accused of Delaying £4m Legal Claim
Emma Simpson, Business Correspondent, and Tom Beal, Reporter
Former sub-postmaster Lee Castleton has accused the Post Office and Fujitsu of intentionally inflating legal costs and hindering his £4 million damages claim related to the Horizon IT scandal. The High Court heard that Castleton’s ongoing legal battle has led to significant financial strain and delays.
– Background on Lee Castleton’s Case
– Castleton, OBE, was pursued by the Post Office in 2007 for an alleged missing £25,000 from his Bridlington branch.
– His two-year fight resulted in personal bankruptcy, with legal costs exceeding £321,000.
– Fujitsu’s Significant Legal Costs
– During the preliminary hearing, the court revealed that Fujitsu had already accumulated over £700,000 in legal fees related to the case.
– Castleton is the first individual to initiate legal action against both the Post Office and Fujitsu.
Legal Maneuvering and Allegations of Delay
– On Friday, the court discussed the complexities surrounding Castleton’s claim.
– His legal team argued that both companies have deliberately created hurdles to make the process difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.
– They contend that the Post Office’s pursuit of its 2007 civil claim was an abuse of process, claiming that the final judgment was secured fraudulently.
– Allegations also include collusion between Fujitsu and the Post Office to obstruct justice by deliberately and dishonestly withholding critical evidence.
– The Wider Context
– Castleton is among 555 sub-postmasters who collectively challenged the Post Office, led by Sir Alan Bates. They secured a victory in 2019 and reached a settlement, yet many, including Castleton, received inadequate compensation due to substantial legal expenses.
– He now seeks to have that settlement invalidated, asserting it was obtained through deceptive practices by the Post Office.
Court’s Ruling and Future Proceedings
– Neither the Post Office nor Fujitsu has submitted a formal defense to Castleton’s claims, but both have sought to split the trial into two separate proceedings.
– They argue this approach would efficiently determine if the original settlement restricts Castleton from pursuing his individual claim. If upheld, this could dismiss the entire case.
– Castleton’s barrister, Paul Marshall KC, challenged this notion, arguing that proceeding with a single trial would be far simpler.
– Ultimately, Mr. Justice Trower and Judge Francesca Kaye ordered a bifurcation of the trials and will provide reasoning for their decision later.
Statements from the Parties Involved
– The Post Office, owned by the government, stated it had engaged earnestly with Castleton to address his civil judgment. However, it maintains that his current claim lacks merit and emphasizes its obligation to defend itself to shareholders.
– Castleton seeks vindication regarding the judgment that has negatively impacted his life and family for two decades, urging a judicial determination of his entitlement.
– After the hearing, Castleton expressed confidence in the process, stating: We know what we need to do and we’re very happy where we are. We’ll get a defense and that’s what we’ve been waiting for.
– The Post Office welcomed the court’s decision, asserting that separate trials would expedite legal resolutions and reduce costs, emphasizing its commitment to achieving fair outcomes for affected postmasters.
Conclusion
Lee Castleton’s case exemplifies the broader implications of the Horizon IT scandal, which wrongfully prosecuted countless sub-postmasters due to faulty software. While others have seen their convictions overturned, Castleton remains in a complex legal battle, advocating for justice and proper compensation. As proceedings unfold, all eyes will be on how the legal challenges against the Post Office and Fujitsu develop.