Castleton v Post Office Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 158 (Ch)

Andrew Young (instructed by Simons Muirhead Burton LLP) for the Claimant.

Mr Justice Trower

• At the conclusion of a one-day directions hearing held on 21 January 2026, we made an order pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(j) for a separate trial of the Part A claims, to take place before the trial of the Part B and Part C claims. This judgment, to which Master Kaye has contributed, explains our reasons for taking that course.

• In making the order we made, the court does not seek to minimise in any way the profound impact which the events that have come to be known as the Horizon scandal have had on the Claimant, his family and many other former sub postmasters.  But the function of the court is to assess the way in which the Claimant has formulated the claims he now makes and, having regard to the overriding objective to which the court must seek to give effect (CPR 1.1 to 1.4), to give appropriate directions for their efficient resolution.

• It is appropriate to start with a very short description of the background to the current proceedings.  It is not necessary to do more than this for the purposes of resolving the issues with which the directions hearing was concerned.

• The Claimant was the sub postmaster of a branch post office at 14 South Marine Drive, Bridlington between July 2003 and May 2004, when he was suspended from his branch post office by the First Defendants (“POL”). The grounds for his suspension were that the branch accounts, prepared with the use of the Horizon computerised accounting system (the “Horizon system”) designed by the Second Defendant (“Fujitsu”), disclosed cash shortfall discrepancies.

• This was followed by legal proceedings brought by POL against the Claimant (the “Original Action”). They culminated in a six-day trial before HHJ Havery QC sitting as a High Court judge in which the Claimant acted as a litigant in person. On 22 January 2007, POL obtained judgment (the “2007 Judgment”) against the Claimant for a sum in excess of £25,000, which, after taking into account substantial costs, became a judgment debt of £309,807.  Shortly thereafter a bankruptcy order was made against him, which was only annulled in January 2023 when his creditors were paid in full.

• As is well known, many other sub postmasters were pursued by POL to recover apparent shortfalls thrown up by the Horizon system, some of whom were also made bankrupt. POL also prosecuted and obtained convictions against hundreds of individuals, which have subsequently been held to have been wrongly obtained.

• Between 2016 and 2019, 555 sub postmasters and former sub postmasters including the Claimant (the “GLO Claimants”) were engaged in litigation with POL under a Group Litigation Order in proceedings known as Bates & Ors v Post Office Limited (the “GLO Action”).  The causes of action in the GLO Action included claims against POL in deceit.

• Two trials in the GLO Action were held by Fraser J in 2018 and 2019:

i) The ‘Common Issues Trial’, which was heard in November and December 2018. This is of less relevance for present purposes.  Judgment was handed down on 15 March 2019.

ii) The ‘Horizon Issues Trial’, which was heard between March and July 2019 and was principally concerned with the integrity of the Horizon system.  Judgment was handed down on 16 December 2019; a draft having been circulated to the parties on 28 November 2019.

• Between the time the draft judgment in the Horizon Issues Trial was circulated and the time that judgment was handed down, the GLO Action was compromised by way of a settlement agreement dated 10 December 2019 (the “Settlement Deed”). The parties to the Settlement Deed were the GLO Claimants, POL, and the GLO Claimants’ solicitors, Freeths LLP (“Freeths”).

• The Settlement Deed compromised the claims in the GLO Action and other potential claims which the GLO Claimants may have had against POL in return for a single payment by POL of £52.25 million to be distributed through a process of apportionment implemented by the GLO steering committee.  The Settlement Deed contains a very widely drafted release of all claims of whatsoever nature, whether known or unknown and whether arising out of negligent, wilful or intentional conduct, amongst which is a category of claims called the ‘Like Claims’. It includes both specific and general releases.

• Since the settlement of the GLO Action, four compensation schemes have been established to provide financial redress for sub postmasters affected by the Horizon system. One of them, the GLO Compensation Scheme, was designed for sub postmasters such as the Claimant who were part of the GLO Action, and who do not have a Horizon-related conviction. The Claimant has not made any claim in the GLO Compensation Scheme.

• In September 2020 a public enquiry into the Horizon scandal, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams was established.  In the Introduction to the first volume of its findings, published on 8 July 2025, Sir Wyn said as follows:

“As a consequence of the activities described in the preceding two paragraphs, many hundreds of people have been convicted, wrongly, of criminal offences, and many thousands of people have been held responsible, wrongly, for losses which were illusory, as opposed to real. As later volumes of my Report will demonstrate, all of these people are properly to be regarded as victims of wholly unacceptable behaviour perpetrated by a number of individuals employed by and/or associated with the Post Office and Fujitsu from time to time and by the Post Office and Fujitsu as institutions.”

• This volume of the inquiry’s report did not deal with the original proceedings against the Claimant in any detail, but it suggested that the next volume of the report, which has not yet been published, may do so.  However, it did give a description of the enduring impact of what had occurred on the Claimant and his family (and in particular his daughter) based on what Sir Wyn called his daughter’s moving account.

• POL now acknowledges that the 2007 Judgment had a profoundly damaging effect on the Claimant and his family for which it has apologised on a number of occasions.  POL’s position is that it has repeatedly offered to have the 2007 Judgment set aside by consent and remains willing to co-operate with the Claimant in doing so.

Continue reading this Judgment here.