Castleton was bankrupted by legal costs after the Post Office sued him on the basis of incorrect evidence from Fujitsu Services’ inaccurate Horizon accounting software in 2007. He is seeking a declaration the 2007 judgment was obtained by fraud, an order setting it aside, damages in excess of £2m and an order against the Post Office that the bankruptcy order made against him be cancelled and annulled for having been obtained by fraud.
The Post Office and Fujitsu challenge the substance of the underlying claims, and rely on a 2019 settlement deed made with Castleton between the two Bates judgments, [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) and [2019] EWHC 3408 (QB).
In January, however, two judges ordered at a directions hearing that his claim be split in two. Parts B and C would cover ‘historic claims’ that the Post Office’s original action of him in 2007 was an abuse of process and conspiracy to injure him, and was a judgment obtained by fraud. Part A would cover Castleton’s argument that the Post Office’s attempt to rely on the deed of settlement would be unconscionable.
Giving the main judgment in Lee Castleton v Post Office and Fujitsu Services [2026] EWCA Civ 577 last week, Lord Justice Zacaroli held the decision to separate the issues was ‘indeed problematic’ and there was ‘scope for significant overlap’.
Zacaroli LJ said: ‘The proposal that the unconscionability issue be determined on the basis of the provisional assumption as to [Post Office Ltd’s] knowledge of the historic claims creates too many practical difficulties to be workable.
‘There is in my view no basis which requires this case to be remitted to different judges.’
