This is the unperfected transcript of the fourth day of the Common Issues trial in the Bates and others v Post Office group litigation. The hearing below took place on Tue 13 November 2018 in court 26 of the High Court's Rolls Building. The claimants' QC is Mr Patrick Green and the defendant's QC is Mr David Cavender. The managing judge is Mr Justice Fraser.
Witnesses
Lead Claimant 4: Naushad Abdulla - former Subpostmaster, Croydon branch (South London).
Lead Claimant 5: Liz Stockdale - former Subpostmaster, Sandsacre branch, Bridlington, East Yorkshire
Naushad Abdulla's witness statement.
Liz Stockdale's witness statment.
Witnesses
Lead Claimant 4: Naushad Abdulla - former Subpostmaster, Croydon branch (South London).
Lead Claimant 5: Liz Stockdale - former Subpostmaster, Sandsacre branch, Bridlington, East Yorkshire
Naushad Abdulla's witness statement.
Liz Stockdale's witness statment.
For my write-up of the day, click here.
Day 4 full transcript:
Day 1 transcript - Wed 7 November - Opening arguments
Day 2 transcript - Thu 8 November - Claimants: Alan Bates, Pam Stubbs part 1
Day 3 transcript - Mon 12 November - Pam Stubbs part 2, Mohammad Sabir
Day 4 transcript - Tue 13 November - Naushad Abdulla, Liz Stockdale
Day 5 transcript - Wed 14 November - Louise Dar
Day 6 transcript - Thu 15 November - Post Office: Nick Beal, Paul Williams
Day 7 transcript - Mon 19 November - Sarah Rimmer, John Breeden, AvdB part 1
Day 8 transcript - Tue 20 November - AvdB part 2
Day 9 transcript - Wed 21 November - AvdB part 3, Timothy Dance, Helen Dickinson, Michael Shields part 1
Day 10 transcript - Thu 22 November - Michael Shields part 2, Elaine Ridge, David Longbottom, Michael Webb
Day 11 transcript - Mon 26 November - Michael Haworth, Andrew Carpenter, Brian Trotter
Day 12 transcript - Mon 3 December - Claimants' closing argument: Patrick Green QC - part 1
Day 13 transcript - Tue 4 December - Claimants' closing argument: Patrick Green QC - part 2
Day 14 transcript - Wed 5 December - Post Office closing argument: David Cavender QC - part 1
Day 15 transcript - Thu 6 December - Post Office closing argument: David Cavender QC - part 2
Day 2 transcript - Thu 8 November - Claimants: Alan Bates, Pam Stubbs part 1
Day 3 transcript - Mon 12 November - Pam Stubbs part 2, Mohammad Sabir
Day 4 transcript - Tue 13 November - Naushad Abdulla, Liz Stockdale
Day 5 transcript - Wed 14 November - Louise Dar
Day 6 transcript - Thu 15 November - Post Office: Nick Beal, Paul Williams
Day 7 transcript - Mon 19 November - Sarah Rimmer, John Breeden, AvdB part 1
Day 8 transcript - Tue 20 November - AvdB part 2
Day 9 transcript - Wed 21 November - AvdB part 3, Timothy Dance, Helen Dickinson, Michael Shields part 1
Day 10 transcript - Thu 22 November - Michael Shields part 2, Elaine Ridge, David Longbottom, Michael Webb
Day 11 transcript - Mon 26 November - Michael Haworth, Andrew Carpenter, Brian Trotter
Day 12 transcript - Mon 3 December - Claimants' closing argument: Patrick Green QC - part 1
Day 13 transcript - Tue 4 December - Claimants' closing argument: Patrick Green QC - part 2
Day 14 transcript - Wed 5 December - Post Office closing argument: David Cavender QC - part 1
Day 15 transcript - Thu 6 December - Post Office closing argument: David Cavender QC - part 2
Day 4 full transcript:
Tuesday, 13 November 2018
(10.30 am)
MR GREEN: May it please your Lordship, I would like to call
Mr Abdulla, please.
MR NAUSHAD ABDULLA (sworn)
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you, Mr Abdulla. Do have a seat,
please.
MR GREEN: Mr Abdulla, in front of you should be a document
entitled "Witness Statement of Naushad Abdulla". If you
turn to page 10, please, and you look at paragraph 47,
look at the bottom of paragraph 47, in handwriting
{C1/4/10}:
"Since the date of this witness statement, I have
been shown a copy of the contract at D2.1/4. I do not
recall having seen this before."
Subject to that amendment, is your statement true to
the best of your knowledge and belief?
A. It is.
MR GREEN: Thank you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. Mr Cavender.
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER
MR CAVENDER: Good morning, Mr Abdulla.
A. Good morning.
Q. A couple of questions by way of introduction, hopefully
uncontroversial. You started working for Post Office,
the Charlton branch, in January 2007, and you were
terminated on 14 April 2009, does that sound right?
A. 8 May 2009, did you say, terminated?
Q. Terminated 14 April 2009.
A. No, that is wrong.
Q. Is it?
A. Maybe I was suspended at that date, but terminated on
8 May 2009.
Q. Very well. But you worked for just over two years for
Post Office?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. The questions I am going to ask you are about events
occurring in 2006, at the beginning of your appointment,
some 11 years ago now. Would it be fair to say your
details of the -- your memory of the details of those
events is at best vague, would that be a fair overall
assessment?
A. Sorry, did you say 11 years ago?
Q. 2006 to now. We are now 2018. That's about eleven
years, isn't it?
A. Yes, but a traumatic event like that you can't forget
even though you try, it is just -- you try and forget
it, but I still remember vividly. But if there is
anything I do not remember I will let you know.
Q. Okay. What was traumatic about receiving a contract or
some letters?
A. I was talking about the whole event.
Q. Okay, but if you focus on the debate we are going to
have, I think, about receiving letters, receiving the
contract, things of that kind, that wasn't very
traumatic, was it, at the time, or memorable?
A. Receiving the contract and the letters of acceptance,
you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. No, that was a happy occasion. I was very happy to be
selected.
Q. Yes. So that wasn't something that was traumatic or
would particularly sear itself on your memory, is it?
A. Yes, at the beginning when I was selected, after the
interview, yes, I was happy to receive the position as
a subpostmaster because of all the hard work and effort
I had put into the application.
Q. Let's carry on with your background then. So prior to
applying to Post Office you had worked in
the pharmaceutical industry, is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct. I was a sales rep and very
successful. I won many awards. It's quite depressing
to -- when I think about where I could have been, maybe
a regional sales manager --
Q. You were selling medicines to GP practices --
A. Sorry, you just cut me off. I was just talking.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do finish your answer.
A. So yes, as I said I was -- I don't know where I would
have been now if I didn't join the Post Office. I would
have probably been a regional sales manager. The reason
I say that, because I was ambitious, I was motivated,
I was self-confident, which I'm not any more.
MR CAVENDER: That job involved you selling medicines to GP
practices?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. And that involved you reading documents and
understanding them, understanding your products and the
detail and what it was you were selling to GPs?
A. Sorry, can you repeat that?
Q. In selling things, selling pharmaceutical products to
GPs, that involved you reading and understanding
documents?
A. About medicines and about sales techniques, yes.
Q. It's important to get the detail right to distinguish
one particular medicine from another, am I right?
A. It was mostly about the therapeutic areas and how the
medicines would affect those therapeutic areas.
Obviously you had to know your stuff when talking to GPs
and other healthcare professionals. So, yes, you would
have to know your stuff regarding medicines and how they
interact with the body and side-effects and things.
Q. And "know your stuff", as you say, you would have got
that presumably from a briefing paper from the producer
of that product?
A. No, it was mostly on the initial training, the induction
training where the products were trained.
Q. But presumably you were given some kind of handout or
something, some summary --
A. Of course, yes.
Q. -- of what you were entitled to say about the product?
A. Definitely.
Q. And you had to read that carefully?
A. I had to revise it, yes, because there were tests
afterwards, in the next day or so.
Q. You had to understand what was in that document?
A. It wasn't a document as such, it was more product
information -- medical information, product information,
if you like. I don't know what sort of document you are
referring to.
Q. It required you to be good on detail, getting into the
detail and understanding it, do you accept that?
A. It was studying, really.
Q. In your personal CV, if we go to bundle E4.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Would you like to move that screen a bit
closer to you? Feel free.
A. Perfect, thank you.
MR CAVENDER: Go to {E4/6/1}, please. That is your CV,
I think?
A. Yes, that is my CV.
Q. If you look at the personal profile at the top, you say
you are:
"Someone with excellent communication skills ...
quick to grasp new ideas and concepts."
Is that a fair summary of your characteristics?
A. Yes, of course. I wouldn't have put that on otherwise.
Q. And you say under "Skills and Abilities" at the bottom,
you have:
"Excellent organisation and planning skills ..."
Is that also correct, do you think?
A. Sorry, at the bottom ...
Q. Under "Skills and Abilities".
A. Yes:
"Excellent organisation and planning skills, strong
work ethics and personal values."
Organisation and planning skills in terms of
planning meetings, planning the days that you would go
out and see your customers. And then also planning in
terms of recording the events of meeting the customers.
Q. The second bullet point under "Skills and Abilities":
"Intelligent and analytical outlook ..."
Is that a fair description of your abilities?
A. Yes, analytical, I mean again recording information,
recording information on like Excel, just basic Word,
Excel, Microsoft documents, but nothing too major in IT.
Q. If we go to {E4/33/1}, the notes of your interview,
under "Standards", so the bottom box, second paragraph:
"Current role he advised us he is computer champion,
all team members have to feed in logs on daily basis
..."
You have to make checks to make sure they are all
completed correctly.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. It is fair to say that that would require you to be good
on detail.
A. I'm not saying I'm not good at detail. The thing is
with this, with being the Voyager champion at the time,
it was more about relaying information to head office.
So I would collect the information from my team and just
relay it to head office, so -- and make sure everyone
else was putting in their information correctly. So
when you have a sales call at the end of the day you
input -- or as soon as you can you input the data into
your sales force, the Voyager system, and that records
next objectives and things like that what to do when you
go and see them again.
So I was making sure they were entering that into
the system correctly and they were logging it all in
correctly on a day-to-day basis. And that was my role,
I was being a champion. So I believe that answers your
question.
Q. You also had to, according to this, ensure that
the figures tallied up. You had to go through the
figures and make sure that they were entered correctly
and the figures tally up?
A. No, not really. There was no figures. It was just
about if someone hadn't put -- I would know where
someone hadn't done -- put in the figures for that day.
So it wasn't actually the figures, it was just inputting
the figures for that day. So every day we would have to
get it back to head office.
Q. But what Elaine Ridge has recorded here you saying at
this interview, in the second paragraph, is:
"... completed correctly and if need be changes so
that the figures tally up."
You say she has got that wrong, do you?
A. Yes, I think that is not accurate.
Q. Again by way of background, going into this process of
purchasing the branch and contracting with the
Post Office, this was going to be a significant
commitment for you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was going to be important to you?
A. It was important in -- I wanted to make a better life
for myself, a more stable life where -- with the
pharmaceutical industry at that time there was a lot of
mergers happening, that is when Glaxo and SmithKline
merged, and other companies merged as well, so a lot of
teams were being disbanded. It happened to me once
where I was made redundant, luckily I got a position
with another team.
I had small children, a mortgage to pay, so I wanted
something more secure, more stable, and something more
lucrative, really. I believed the Post Office was the
right position for me.
Q. But you were going to take care and use the commercial
skills you have been describing in assessing whether or
not --
A. Sorry, I wouldn't say commercial skills. I would say
sales skills.
Q. But you are not commercially naive, are you?
A. I was.
Q. If you are going selling products to GPs and trying to
increase sales and all the rest of it, you couldn't
really describe yourself as commercially naive, could
you?
A. It depends on the context.
Q. Just generally. At that time you were not
a commercially naive person?
A. I had never owned a business before. I was just working
for a company in sales.
Q. And in terms of the due diligence you did before you
entered into the purchase of the -- with Mr Sandhu for
the premises and with Post Office --
A. Of Charlton, Church Lane?
Q. Yes, you did your own investigations or what people call
due diligence, is that fair? You looked into the
background?
A. My discussions with Mr Sandhu were primarily regarding
the lease. I was concerned about only having
a twelve-year lease. I was concerned that the price had
increased by £10,000 and we were negotiating on that,
and I was -- it was just about lease matters, so just
the terms of the lease. We discussed staffing and
I agreed from his suggestion to keep the staff on,
because they were experienced and I could learn from
them. But again just mainly about the lease.
I did go to the branch, spend a few hours there, see
the customers, how -- going in and out, making sure it
wasn't completely dead. Because when I received the
particulars of sale I had two figures for the
remuneration, one was £80 or £70,000 and from the
Post Office it was £114,000. So I was just checking to
make sure why that discrepancy was there, and again that
was -- and when I did start I just decided, no, it was
very low, it was about £70/80,000, and I did bring it up
to £120,000 in the first year.
Q. Did you speak to Mr Sandhu about running a Post Office,
what it was like, the good bits, the bad bits?
A. Not really. I had experience with my parents. They ran
a Post Office in about the early 1990s.
Q. Did you ever work in the Post Office?
A. No, I was too young.
Q. Not even informally? You didn't help around --
A. Well, you know, I was round the back just observing
really. But they were happy. They had the old paper
system, none of this Horizon stuff. So they were happy.
Everything was running to plan, they were making a good
life for themselves, and that is the experience
I received from my observations.
Q. You knew from the earlier stages that your relationship
with Post Office was going to be governed by a written
contract, presumably?
A. Yes, some kind of contract would have been in place.
Some kind of agreement, yes.
Q. And presumably you were looking out for that to be
provided to you at some stage during the process?
A. Yes. The thing is regarding the contract, I just
clarify now, I have never received the contract. I have
never seen the contract. Sorry, I have seen the
contract since, but I never received the contract, never
have, never will, by the Post Office, sorry, and -- but
I have seen it since. And I understand why they didn't
send it or they omitted it, whether it was intentionally
or unintentionally, because I would never have signed
it, having seen it since, and I would have gained some
legal advice beforehand. And especially regarding so
many clauses, so many of these -- it's so confusing and
so on, so I would have had to seek legal advice.
And the clauses such as termination, zero months,
zero and three months, no one would sign it. No one
would sign it in their right mind. There would be no
agents left.
Q. You realised, if we go to paragraph 10 of your witness
statement {C1/4/2}, that you were going to be
self-employed? You realised that, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also realised you were going to be an agent of
the Post Office?
A. Can I stop you there. "Agent" -- it was more
"franchisee" at that time. That was the word that was
branded, "franchisee", not "agent". When I think about
franchisee, I think about McDonalds and Domino's, and
I don't think if I was franchisee for them someone would
come in unexpectedly, carry out an audit and shut me
down. If I was working for McDonalds -- actually I have
experience working with Domino's in management and what
they would do was if there was something wrong, if they
were not productive, it would flash up on the system
that you -- that the productivity is not there, so you
need to get rid of some drivers or get rid of some staff
so your productivity would go up. And if still not,
they would send someone in and they would try and help
and advise and support. That was all I was looking for
with the Post Office, and that is all any subpostmaster
looks for with the Post Office, is just some support.
Q. Mr Abdulla, in the franchisee model you describe, the
franchisee is using his own stock, his own money, isn't
he? In the Post Office example --
A. No, I am just giving you an example of how it would
probably work and my experience of when I was there
working at Domino's.
Q. You can leave Domino's to one side. What I am putting
to you is that in the Post Office model you are
contrasting it with you are using Post Office money, am
I right, in the branch?
A. Yes.
Q. And Post Office stock in the branch?
A. Correct.
Q. Yes. And you were responsible, you understood you were
going to be responsible to account to Post Office for
what you did with that money and that stock, am I right?
A. It was the Post Office's money, that is correct, and it
was the Post Office's stock. But I was responsible
and ... I was trained, I was responsible for the stock
and the cash, yes, that is correct. But going into the
actual office and the position, I was not aware of --
I was not aware of the lack of support that I would be
receiving if there was a problem.
Everything was fine regarding training, classroom
training, and so on, but it is only -- the only problem
I have is when you have a problem there is no support.
You have the Helpline which is useless, to be honest.
The Helpline -- I have heard about this second tier, and
maybe they didn't think I was important enough to put me
to the second tier, but what I experienced from the
Helpline, it was just useless.
And I don't believe that all helplines do have
a second tier because -- again from some experience
I have. But why do you have a first tier if they are
useless? Just have a second tier then.
Q. Mr Abdulla, can we go back to the question, please.
A. Sorry.
Q. In terms of the written contract you expected to be
provided with, you would have expected that to contain
detailed terms, wouldn't you, regulating your
relationship with the Post Office?
A. I don't know because I didn't receive any. All
I received was a welcome pack and a 1M document and
I had to send my bank details and the actual contract
was not there. So I don't know what I was -- what --
sorry, what was the question?
Q. You have accepted that in principle you were expecting
a contract, and what I am putting supplemental to that
is you would have expected such a contract to contain
the detailed terms governing your relationship with
Post Office?
A. To tell you the truth, I -- I was really happy at the
time of -- when I was accepted, so I just signed
everything and sent it off the same day. Because
I didn't want to be made redundant if it was going to be
the case with my job, so I wanted to have this, as
I said before, more secure position.
Q. Presumably you had a contract with your pharmaceutical
company?
A. Yes, that is correct, and in that contract you actually
signed the contract. That is another thing I wanted to
bring up. I am not a contracts expert, but when you buy
a house you sign the contract, when you put your house
for sale you sign the contract with the agent. So is
there a copy of a signed contract with the Post Office?
Can you provide me with one?
Q. We will go through the documents in a minute, if that is
all right.
Did you ask Mr Sandhu about his relationship with
Post Office and ask for a copy of his contract when you
were chatting with him?
A. Sir, my Lord, discussions with Mr Sandhu, as I said
before, were regarding the lease. Anything regarding
the contract I would have assumed to be personal and
I wouldn't have asked for it. No one from the
Post Office told me to ask for a contract from
Mr Sandhu, to look through his terms, to look through
anything regarding his contract. And if they had told
me, I would have asked Mr Sandhu. But because they
didn't, I did not ask Mr Sandhu for his contract to have
a look at his terms and conditions. And I presume even
now that that would be a personal thing to him, and why
would he give that to me to look at? If you see.
Q. Would it be personal? You would expect the terms to be
standard terms, wouldn't you?
A. There would be standard terms and there would be
personal terms to his position.
Q. So there would be no harm in showing you the standard
terms, would there?
A. I am sure it would have been all in one. And as I said,
it didn't come up. It wasn't something that was
highlighted by the Post Office to do. And if it was,
I would be concerned as well, because why are they
telling me to have a look at his? Surely there must
be -- it's a red flag to me. If they say to me, "Okay,
you need to look at his terms and conditions or his
contract", that would say to me that there is something
wrong here and I need to seek legal advice.
Q. Did you ask your parents about their relationship with
Post Office and their contractual relationship?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And what did they tell you?
A. They were happy. The only reason they sold their
post office was because it was at quite a distance away
from where we lived, but they were on the old paper
system, and they say that they were happy, life was
easier, mistakes were rare. So, yes, the only reason
they sold it, as I said, was because of the distance.
Q. So moving forward then with your application itself, if
we go to {E4/10/1} we see a letter of 6 September 2006.
Do you remember this? To yourself.
A. Yes. There is another letter in 2005, I believe that is
an error, and the whole way through it is just riddled
with errors, wrong dates, wrong addresses. So if there
are errors before and after, surely errors can be made
during my time. So this is an example. There is
another letter similar to this, I don't know if it is
exactly the same, but it is a date from 2005. Have you
got that?
Q. Can we just focus on this letter?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on.
Mr Abdulla, I know that it has been a very difficult
emotional experience.
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And I know that there is lots that you
want to say. I have read your witness statement really,
really carefully, and it is understandable on a human
level that you are cross with some of the points
Mr Cavender is putting to you. But what you have to do,
please, and it might be quite difficult, is just listen
to whatever the question is and do your best to answer
it.
A. Okay, my Lord. Sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am aware of the other letter of 2005
because you mention it in your witness statement so
I have seen it.
So it might come across to you that this is very
one-sided but that is just the way it appears. So do
your best just to focus on what he asks you.
A. Sure. I am just putting my ...
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I entirely understand.
Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: So looking at this letter, and particularly
looking to the final paragraph, we see there you are
being told that:
"Subpostmasters hold a contract for service with
Post Office ... they are agents, not employees of the
company. As such, postmasters are responsible for the
provision of their own staff and premises."
You would have read that at the time, am I right?
(Pause)
A. I think I only read the first paragraph.
Q. What, just the "Thank you" one?
A. Yes.
Q. You remember that now, do you? That eleven years ago
you remember reading the first paragraph and not the
final paragraph?
A. Yes, that sounds familiar. Only the first paragraph
sounds familiar to me. That is the only thing
I remember.
Q. What about the second paragraph, do you remember reading
that?
A. I believe, yes, there was a form that was going to be
sent to me, so that seems familiar as well actually,
yes.
Q. Because you have to know where to send your application,
don't you:
"Your full application should be forwarded to --"
A. This is before the application form, correct?
Q. Indeed.
A. Yes. So presumably on the application form and the
letters enclosed with that they would have an address to
send the application form on there.
Q. What about the third paragraph, do you say you read
that? Do you remember reading that?
A. No. As I said, I was just -- I was just -- it's just
a standard letter to say you are interested in a branch,
so there's not really anything further to read from
that.
Q. But this was the first communication you had from
Post Office so presumably you were quite interested in
it? (Pause)
A. Anyway, I do realise that there would be some kind of
contract, you know, with the Post Office. That is not
a dispute there.
Q. If you go over the page {E4/10/2}, there is indication
of the estimated remuneration. Were you interested in
that? Would you have read that?
A. Yes, this is where I probably skipped to. This is what
I was interested in.
Q. Mr Abdulla, you said at the beginning that you thought
you had only read the first paragraph, was your first
answer to me, about this letter.
A. The thing is I didn't realise because of this, it is not
in a page format, it is a screen format, so I don't know
what is going to be next. So how do I know if I have
only read ... if you see what I mean? It is not in
a page format.
Q. That is your answer?
A. Yes, because I didn't know what was coming next.
I didn't know the second page of this. So, yes, this is
what I skipped to and this is what I was referring to
earlier about the estimated remuneration of £106,000,
and on the Christie's particulars of sale it was £70 or
£80,000.
Q. Isn't the truth of the matter, Mr Abdulla, this was the
first communication with Post Office and you would have
read it all reasonably carefully? Not the paragraphs
you like, ignoring the paragraphs that I want you to
read. Isn't that the truth?
A. I would say I may have just skimmed over the other
paragraphs, but just for actual focusing on it would
have been the ones that I am interested in.
Q. And this had I think attached to it something called
"Conditions of Appointment", which have been lost and
we can't find, but they would have been, I suggest,
similar to those that Mr Sabir had --
A. Sorry, would they be with this document or the actual
application? Because this is just an interest -- to
register your interest, isn't it?
Q. If you look at it, it's a four-page document. It says
"1 of 4" in the bottom left --
A. Yes. I don't think the conditions would have been in
this one but I could be wrong, I am not sure.
Q. Moving on then to 9 November, the invitation to the
interview. So that is {E4/30/1}, please. Before I ask
you anything, just remind yourself of the document.
Because if it is on a screen or something you are saying
you can't read or understand what is in later parts.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think the witness said he didn't
realise what was on page 2.
MR CAVENDER: Exactly.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So --
A. Yes, it's not because I can't read.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, just pause for a second.
Read that page. When you have got to the bottom just
say you have finished, we will scroll to the next page
to let you see that, and when you have read the actual
document we will go back to this page so Mr Cavender can
ask you questions.
A. Thank you, my Lord. (Pause)
So before this there was obviously the application
form and the business plan that needed to be filled in
before they invited me to interview. So you skipped
that intentionally, is that right?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, don't worry about that, all
right? Mr Cavender is just -- he has relatively limited
time so he is not going to be able to put every document
to you.
A. That is fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have you now read page 1?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we go on to page {E4/30/2}, please.
Just read that. There are 17 of this pages, we are not
going to do this for the whole 17, it is just so you can
remind yourself of what the document is and then
Mr Cavender is going to take you to some parts, okay?
A. Yes. Thank you. (Pause)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, just remind me, the 17
includes some of the attachments I think, is that right?
MR CAVENDER: Yes. It's the whole thing with the various
appendices.
A. Yes, that is fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And just on to the next page, just
quickly, so you can see the third page {E4/30/3}. All
right?
A. Yes, that is fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, back to you.
MR CAVENDER: Actually if you go to the fourth page too,
there is something you signed saying you will or will
not attend an interview, on {E4/30/4}. Do you see that?
A. Yes. Again, the dates, I had two dates on this --
sorry, my Lord, but there were two dates on this so
I wasn't sure which date it was.
Q. Okay. A question about this document: you received this
document on or around 9 November 2006, am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would have read that document around that time?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have -- if you go to page 5 of this document
{E4/30/5}, which is an attachment entitled "Brief
summary of certain sections of the subpostmasters
contract", do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have also received those, first of all, with
this letter? It's page 5 of 17. Do you accept you
received that "Brief summary of certain sections of the
subpostmasters contract"?
A. I do, but it is not something that is immediately
sticking in my head. So I believe I received it but
I don't know the details of it. But yes, I agree that
I have received that.
Q. When you received it, as you say, you had filled in the
application, yes? You put in your business plan et
cetera, and made some effort to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes.
A. A lot of effort -- a lot of time, a lot of effort, yes,
definitely.
Q. So this was important for you as the next stage to
attend the interview to, using your words, sell yourself
effectively to the Post Office, and your business plan,
to be taken on as an agent, is that fair?
A. They were interested in my sales abilities and my sales
background, so that was -- I believe that was one of
the reasons or the main reason that I was successful in
this application, because I was all about sales, and
with the Post Office it is again about sales and making
money. As agent or a franchisee it is working together
to make money for yourself and for the franchisee that
you are working with in a sort of partnership where you
are beneficial to both you and your franchisee.
Q. Can we go back to the letter, please. So this would
have been the last thing you had received prior to
attending the interview, yes, that was being planned,
am I right? This sets up the interview, doesn't it?
A. What was the question, sorry?
Q. This would have been the last thing you received --
A. Yes.
Q. -- from Post Office, of any substance, prior to
attending the interview?
A. I'm not sure. There could have been other papers that
were sent regarding the interview but I am not
100 per cent sure.
Q. In terms of preparing for the interview, it would be
important for you to have read this letter and
understood its contents?
A. Yes, that is correct. But as I said, it is not the
last -- it might not be the last document that
I received from the Post Office before the interview.
Q. Let's have a look through it and see what you would have
found out when you did read it.
If you go to page {E4/30/2}, please, the third
paragraph, it says:
"I also attach a brief summary of conditions of the
subpostmasters contract for your attention. Please note
that the summary does not represent the complete terms
and conditions of the contract and may not be relied
upon for any purpose by a subpostmaster. It only covers
certain sections of the contract to give you an idea of
what to expect and should not be used in place of
a thorough review of the contract. You will receive
a full copy of the contract if you are successful ..."
You would have read that, wouldn't you, on receipt
of this letter?
A. Yes, again it says the conditions of subpostmasters --
there is no contract as such.
Q. What it says is, there are certain sections in the bit
we are going to see in a minute, you will receive a full
copy of the contract if you are successful?
A. Yes, I believe there were a few points from the contract
which I did skim over again, and as it says, it is not
going to be relied upon, and it is only for certain
sections of the -- obviously I didn't pay too much
attention because if it says it is not to be relied
upon, so I don't know if it is -- those conditions are
going to be in the actual contract or not. So there is
no point in really studying those points really.
Q. Is that really true? Just think back for a moment what
you just said, the logic of that. On your case you had
no idea at this stage what --
A. I was just going through --
Q. Please. At this stage you say you had no idea what the
terms of the contract were going to be, and this was
an early sight of a summary of certain of the terms, so
surely you would be very interested indeed in what they
might cover?
A. Why does it say that:
"It only covers certain sections to give you an idea
and should not be used in place of a thorough review of
the contract."
Q. It is saying what it says. This is an early summary for
you to prepare for the interview, so you know what job
you are being interviewed for and the terms, but you
will get a full contract, and you need to review that
fully as well.
A. It also says:
"Please note that the summary does not represent the
complete terms and conditions of the contract and may
not be relied upon for any purpose ..."
If you hear that, if it is not something that you
cannot rely upon --
Q. Mr Abdulla --
A. I'm not a contract expert, but if I hear that then --
Q. Mr Abdulla, you would have read this, and if you had,
if you go to page 5 of this, please {E4/30/5}, under the
heading "Contract", you would have learned, not for the
first time, that subpostmasters are agents of
Post Office. Yes? So that wouldn't have been new to
you. You knew that already, didn't you, that you were
going to be an agent, is that fair?
A. As I said before, it was more franchisee to -- that was
the term branded. But agent, yes, that is fine as well.
I knew I wasn't going to be an employee and I would be
self-employed.
Q. You say "franchisee"; I have not seen the word
"franchisee" yet in any of the papers I have taken you
to. In terms of branding, I have seen "agent" twice,
and that is what you were going to be, wasn't it?
A. It was more on the website and the blurbs and the --
Q. The website?
A. -- paperwork.
Q. Which website?
A. Post Office website.
Q. So you did some research by looking at the website?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And what did you find on there?
A. I found that there was a lot of blurbs on how we would
be working together and for the benefit of the community
and, you know, all lovey dovey things. So, yes. And
there was the word "franchisee" that was branded about
a lot.
Q. Going back to this page, if I may, page 5 {E4/30/5},
"Assistants":
"The subpostmaster must provide, at his own expense,
any assistance which he may need to carry out the work
in the Post Office branch. Assistants are employees of
the subpostmaster. The subpostmaster will be held
liable for any failure on the part of the assistants to
provide a proper standard of service ..."
That represented your understanding at the time,
anyway, didn't it, that if you employed assistants then
they would be your responsibility, is that right?
A. Can I read that again, sorry?
Q. Of course. (Pause)
A. Yes, that is fine. The assistants I had, as I said,
they were taken over from the previous subpostmaster and
they were well experienced. The minimum term a person
had been there was ten years. So --
Q. Mr Abdulla, can you concentrate please on the points
I am making, which is your recognition at the time that
if you employed assistants --
A. We're talking about assistants, so I'm --
Q. -- you would be responsible for them. That is the point
I am trying to get you to address.
A. I would be responsible for them in terms of?
Q. Any losses they create, their conduct generally.
A. So work related.
Q. Yes, of course.
A. Okay. Right, yes. So I would be responsible for --
yes, work related, so, yes, any losses.
Q. Okay, thank you very much.
A. Anything regarding -- so I would give them some sales
training if they needed it. But regarding anything on
Horizon or anything regarding the products, they were
well versed, and in fact they had to train me and they
had to give me advice because they were so experienced
and I had full faith in them.
Q. Go on to page {E4/30/6} in the same document, at the top
there, four lines down:
"The subpostmaster is expressly forbidden to make
use of the balance due to Post Office for any purpose
other than the requirements of the Post Office service
and he must on no account apply to his own private use,
for however short a period, any portion of Post Office
cash entrusted to him ... Misuse of ... cash may lead to
termination ..."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, that is pretty standard. I wouldn't use
Post Office money for myself. I wouldn't even touch
a penny of the Post Office money. No problem with that.
I wouldn't use it for wages to assistants. I would not
misuse any of the Post Office cash or -- and, no. So
I wouldn't -- no, it wouldn't even cross my mind.
Q. You would have read this at the time, yes?
A. I was aware of this anyway because this is pretty
standard, isn't it? It is not my money --
Q. You had to honestly account to Post Office, didn't you?
A. Are you saying I didn't honestly account?
Q. We will come to that.
A. For my understanding that obviously -- regarding
accounts, there is different kinds of accounts. The
accounts on a trading period, yes, they had to be
obviously ...
Q. Honest and true?
A. Yes, which I believe I always have been, and ...
Q. Going to the next paragraph, "Losses":
"The subpostmaster is responsible for all losses
caused through his own negligence, carelessness or
error, and also for all losses caused by his assistants.
Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good
without delay."
So that clause is being specifically brought to your
attention.
A. And I carried this out.
Q. Sorry?
A. And this was carried out.
Q. Your interview was on 22 November, so some twelve days
after this letter, so you had quite a long time to study
it in advance of the interview. Would you accept that?
A. I wouldn't say I was studying it. Why would I study it?
Q. You had the opportunity to do so.
A. The interview wouldn't be based on this. I wouldn't be
tested on this. So I wouldn't study it. I would have
read it once, maybe twice, but not studying it.
Q. You would look rather foolish if an issue came up, or
you were asked a question covered by this letter and you
looked blank, you would look foolish then, wouldn't you?
A. But I knew they wouldn't ask me any -- well, regarding
the -- in the interview, they wouldn't -- and they would
raise anything on the interview regarding, if they
needed to raise anything, because I'm not -- I am going
into the -- as a new person, I'm not versed with all
these terms and contracts and whatever it is.
Q. But Mr Abdulla, the interviewer could easily say,
couldn't they, on this basis, "Thank you very much.
What do you know about Post Office? What is your
understanding about your responsibility for losses?"
And if you say "I don't have any idea at all", when you
have a document that explains your liability --
A. As I said before, I was aware of --
Q. -- you would look rather silly, wouldn't you?
A. I was aware of losses, and also that the Post Office
money is their own, it is not mine. That is just
common sense. So there is nothing to review and
research and study for that, really, because I took it
in the first time.
Q. You had the interview on 22 November 2006, as I say. Do
you have any clear memory of that interview now, sitting
there now?
A. Yes, I do. So initially it was --
Q. No, can I ask you questions, please. It is not for you
then to give a soliloquy about it.
A. I thought you had finished, sorry.
Q. No, I am going to ask you specific questions about it.
Elaine Ridge was one of the people interviewing you,
do you remember that?
A. Correct.
Q. She has made a witness statement in this action. Have
you read that?
A. I have, yes.
Q. You will be aware, therefore, that she doesn't have any
specific memory of the interview, but what she does do
is say she had a certain practice and says she would
have followed that practice with you in this interview.
What I want to do if I can is, by reference to that
witness statement, take you to what she says she would
ordinarily have done and so would have done with you.
So that is bundle {C2/12/3}, please. Have you
looked across paragraph 12 previously? Have you read
that to yourself?
A. I have seen this before, yes.
Q. What she says --
A. Can I just refresh?
Q. Of course, yes. (Pause)
A. Okay.
Q. So she says what she would have done. If we go through
them one by one, do you recall her saying that, by way
of a checklist almost, the subpostmasters contract was
a contract of services, not of employment?
A. I don't remember specifically but again I knew that fact
anyway.
Q. 2 is remuneration. 3, that they could change the
products and services?
A. I believed, yes, the services would -- they would be
updated or new products would be introduced which did
occur frequently.
Q. And 12.4, that you would be responsible for everything
whether you were there or not?
A. I don't remember it specifically, but again I knew I was
the person responsible for the branch, and everything
that happened as being a manager or a subpostmaster,
that I was responsible for everything that did happen in
the branch.
Q. And 12.5 similarly, you would be responsible for hiring
and training assistants as they --
A. Again I don't remember going through this, but I knew
about this again from documents before, and from
previous experience with my parents, that I would be
responsible for hiring staff, and, yes, my assistants.
Q. In terms of 12.6, that you would have to prepare branch
accounts regularly, you knew that? At this stage --
I think we were on monthly accounting, weren't we, by
this stage?
A. Yes. This again, I don't remember her saying any --
I remember that the branch accounts were mentioned but
not any figures like £1,000 or £1, that was not
mentioned.
Q. Let's take it in stages. Did she emphasise or mention
that you were required to make good any losses
immediately?
A. Again I don't remember it as such, as you say
immediately, but I knew I had to make good losses.
I don't know if it was from her mentioning it or from
anything else, but I knew that anyway, so it was just --
if this is her checklist, so I don't -- I don't know if
she went through this -- I know she didn't go through
everything on this checklist but she might have gone
through some things on this checklist.
Q. Because she says it is her practice to go through and
give an example of a loss, whether it's £1 or £1,000
and --
A. No, I specifically do not remember any figures
mentioned. So even if it was £1 or £1,000, I don't
remember any figures mentioned.
Q. Is it possible she did mention it and you don't remember
it now?
A. No. I said I specifically do not remember --
I specifically remember that she did not mention any
figures.
Q. Then we deal with training, Helpline. The training,
Helpline was mentioned?
A. Training, yes, of course training would have been
mentioned, training which would be the next stage if
I was successful. I enquired about the training, how
long and so on, how would it be made up. That would be
one of my questions I would ask at the end if it wasn't
covered anyway in an interview.
Helpline, I can't remember if she mentioned the
Helpline or not. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But
if she did it would have been just "There is a Helpline
available", not specific, any details of when to ring
them or how to ring them or any phone numbers.
Q. She says it's also her practice to mention the
possibility of you being suspended if anything untoward
happened at the branch. Do you remember her saying
something along those lines?
A. No, I don't remember anything like that. When you are
going for an interview, if someone mentions something
like that, you know, again you are going to have red
flags waving. You are going to think, hang on, this is
not right. If you are going for a job interview they
don't mention like you are going to be -- you could be
suspended and so on when you are going for an -- I know
it is -- you are not going for a job, but it is similar
in a way. But, yes, this would have been -- this would
have raised my eyebrows, if you like.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What about ending the contract
immediately, do you remember if she mentioned that?
A. Definitely not, no. That would have really been
worrying for me and I would have made something -- you
know, enquired more if she had mentioned that and asked
for more details, and then I would have to go away and
do some more research.
MR CAVENDER: In terms of legal advice, paragraph 16 of her
statement, she says in the second line, {C2/12/4}:
"It is likely that I suggested that Mr Abdulla
should take professional advice if he was unsure about
anything as this was something I would say in every --"
A. Definitely not, sorry. No way. That is no way
suggested, about taking professional advice. She never
mentioned anything about professional advice and
I categorically and specifically state that no mention
of seeking professional advice was mentioned by her. If
I knew at the time of what I know now, I would have
definitely sought professional advice. But at the time
she didn't mention anything. No one mentioned anything
about professional advice.
In fact, going to interviews, even from suspension
and termination, it was stated not to have legal advice.
You cannot bring a lawyer, you cannot bring someone who
is a solicitor or someone from -- so this is definitely
not mentioned.
Q. Why have you got such a strong memory of this particular
point compared to all the others?
A. Again, this would have raised my eyebrows. It would
have raised a red flag in my head.
Q. Why?
A. If you are going for an interview and someone says you
should obtain legal advice, okay, about the contract or
about -- if you are unsure about anything, then
of course you will seek legal advice, wouldn't you? If
your employer or your -- or, you know, just an example,
if your employer is saying you should seek legal advice
about this contract you are signing into, you are going
to. You would be daft not to.
Q. What she says --
A. But I didn't, and then I didn't --
Q. Mr Abdulla, to be clear, what she says she would have
said was that you should take professional advice if you
were unsure about anything.
A. It's the same thing.
Q. That is not a red flag, that is just --
A. No, it is the same thing.
Q. -- being sensible, I suggest?
A. It's the same thing, to me it's the same thing. When
you mention legal advice it is the same thing. It just
raises a red flag in my mind.
Q. In terms of service, you made clear in the interview,
presumably, you were going to work in the Post Office
yourself, is that right?
A. Yes, I put that on the business plan, that I'd be
working a minimum 40 hours.
Q. Pausing there. No one suggested to you that you had to
work in the Post Office for a particular amount --
A. No, that was my choice. I was the manager. I wanted to
establish myself as the postmaster. You can't establish
yourself if you are not there. I wanted to be
successful, I wanted to learn, I wanted to improve,
increase the sales. Although the staff were very good,
very reliant, you need to be there to keep motivating
them to increase the sales. You have to make sure they
keep asking the questions, to up-sell and side-sell,
cross-sell. Because they could get lazy and not ask
questions. So you have to be there to motivate them,
and I did motivate them, and I put some incentives
in place for them. And that is why we raised the
remuneration because it was something that I was
really -- because obviously I wanted to get paid for the
hard work that I was putting in. So the only way to do
that is work hard and, you know, why would I not be
there? What would I do then?
Q. But no one required you --
A. I was actually --
Q. Can I ask the question, please. At the interview,
no one required you to say you must work a minimum of so
many hours per week, did they?
A. There is somewhere about 18 hours, which I recall.
Q. No one said to you in the interview "You have to work
a minimum of 18 hours", or any other number of hours,
did they?
A. Because I had put on the business plan that I would be
working 40 hours, I don't think it came -- there was no
point saying to me that ...
Q. Quite. Exactly.
A. 18.
Q. So why in your Particulars of Claim do you say this? If
you go to {B5.4/2/4}, your individual
Particulars of Claim.
A. Can I finish my answers as well? Because I am getting
cut off quite a bit.
Q. Go to {B5.4/2/4}. This is your individual
Particulars of Claim. You say at paragraph 11:
"The defendant required the claimant to agree to
conditions specified by the defendant at the interview
as follows:
"11.3 personal service by the claimant ... 'The
incoming subpostmaster will provide on average not less
than 18 hours personal service each week'."
A. So, yes, 11.1, conditions of appointment, yes, that is
right, that was part of the conditions, so renewing
interior lighting, National Lottery. Yes, a lot of
problems with National Lottery, that's why --
Q. Mr Abdulla, would you concentrate, please, on the
question, which is the personal service thing --
A. Sorry, it's further down.
Q. What I'm suggesting, and I think you've accepted, is
there was no requirement for you to provide personal
service. My question supplemental to that is: why have
you said in your Particulars of Claim here that that was
a condition specified by the defendant at the interview?
A. Did I mention that? No, I did not mention anything
about -- here it says:
"The incoming subpostmaster will provide on average
not less than 18 hours personal service each week."
Are you on the right section?
Q. Yes, I'm on the right section.
A. So what was the query, sorry? I didn't understand.
Q. I think you understand, Mr Abdulla.
A. No, I don't understand.
Q. You have said to me, and it is on the transcript, that
the issue of any number of hours you needing to work at
the Post Office didn't arise because you said in your
business plan you were going to work at least 40 hours
per week, and you agreed. I'm now putting to you --
A. This is something -- as I said before, I must have
picked up that there was 18 hours, which I did say
before, I am sure I said about the 40 hours, that I knew
there was something about 18 hours personal service each
week.
Q. But it was never a condition specified at the interview
that you had to provide 18 hours personal service, was
it? You accepted this once. My question now is: why
have you put it in your pleading that it was? (Pause)
A. This, again, I put 40 hours as the amount of hours
I would be working. I believed this was something
that I had read and it was relevant at the time.
Q. So you read it where?
A. I read it on one of the papers, one of the documents
that was provided.
Q. Provided when?
A. By the Post Office before --
Q. When?
A. Before interview or before the application.
Q. I am sure my learned friend will show you that if that
does exist because I have certainly not seen it.
A. I had it from somewhere, there was something -- and
I have seen it numerous times, about 18 hours.
So is it the fact that I don't need to work at all
in the Post Office?
Q. Correct.
A. So there is no stipulations.
Q. No, exactly. You can employ assistants to do the entire
work as --
A. No, I wasn't aware of that. I was sure there was some
kind of ...
Q. As I say, if there is a document you refer to, I'm sure
my learned --
A. Then who would be the subpostmaster?
Q. You would be, and you would employ assistants to do the
actual work in the branch.
A. It just doesn't register with me, I am sorry.
Q. If you go to paragraph 45 of your witness statement
{C1/4/10}, you say there:
"Although it was not shown to me at the time, I have
now seen a document headed 'Conditions of Appointment at
Post Office Charlton branch' which includes the
requirements I have referred to above, and the hours of
opening, and a requirement for me to provide not less
than 18 hours personal service each week. This document
is signed by Ms Ridge."
Do you see that?
A. The document --
Q. Can I ask the question, please --
A. No, sorry, the document you showed me before, that is
stipulations and things that I need to do, they are
conditions of employment. They are from the
Post Office. Isn't that correct? Along with making
shutters good and repainting and so on and so on, they
come from the Post Office. This is -- in this -- this
is the truth.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By "this", I think you are just
indicating your witness statement, yes?
A. Yes, that is correct, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What I want you to do, Mr Cavender,
please, can you take the witness to {D1.4/1/1} --
A. Sorry, my Lord, I am confused by the document.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That's alright. Mr Cavender is going to
take you to the document you refer to in paragraph 45.
A. Because those conditions come from the Post Office --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, I know. Just wait there
patiently. Mr Cavender is going to take you to the
document. {D1.4/1/1}. (Pause)
A. Sorry, my Lord, it is right there in section 3.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, yes, this is --
A. It's right there in front of me as part of their
conditions. It is not my conditions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. Well, what that says Mr Cavender
is going to take you to now.
MR CAVENDER: This is a document Elaine Ridge has used to
indicate the conditions of appointment that are agreed
at the interview. Do you see at the top?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And this is an internal Post Office document --
A. Sorry, is this after the interview or before?
Q. After the interview.
A. Where does it say that?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, what the document suggests
to me is that Ms Ridge has signed it after the interview
to say what you and she agreed at the interview.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And that is why Mr Cavender has taken
you to the top two lines. He is now going to take you
to the next part which I think is at item 3.
MR CAVENDER: What she does is record here for internal
purposes after the interview that you are going to
provide on average not less than 18 hours personal
service per week. And she has done that because, as you
say in the interview, you said you were going to spend
40 hours per week. Do you see? What I am suggesting to
you is that is very different from her saying it is
a requirement for you to do 18 hours per week. Do you
see the difference?
A. But that would have come from her side.
Q. This does come from her --
A. It is not from my side because --
Q. I agree. This is her checklist of --
A. This is part of the conditions of employment, is that
correct?
Q. No --
A. This is not part of the conditions of employment? Why
is the heading "Conditions of Appointment"?
Q. This is her internal checklist, we can see that from --
A. No, this says:
"Conditions of appointment are as follows ..."
Q. Yes, because what she is doing is reminding herself for
internal purposes what the specific conditions,
the opening hours, things like that, et cetera, are
going to be in the contract with you.
A. In the box, what does it say in the box? Not on number
1.
Q. Can we concentrate on the point I am trying to make,
please, Mr Abdulla, which is --
A. Sir, you are avoiding what is in the box there. It
says:
"Conditions of appointment at Post Office Charlton
branch."
That is the branch I was taking over.
Number 1, conditions of appointment --
Q. Mr Abdulla, can you --
A. Number 2, hours. Number 3:
"The incoming subpostmaster will provide on average
not less than 18 hours personal service each week."
So that is all under the box there. That is what
I see and that is where it is and that is why I assume
that is the conditions.
Q. The question is whether, as you plead, Post Office made
it a requirement for you to serve 18 hours per week.
And I think we have agreed they didn't, because you said
you were going to serve 40, so there was no debate about
Post Office requiring you to serve 18 hours. Am I still
right?
A. I put in my business plan that I would be working
40 hours. Whether that would be 40 hours in ten years'
time, I don't think so. I don't know, maybe. Five
years' time, ten years' time. So in the business plan
you put 40 hours and that is -- it might be a timeframe
of -- because my aim was to buy another Post Office, so
I would obviously not spend 40 hours in that
Post Office, I would have to spend half and half or
whatever. So --
Q. Mr Abdulla, the only reason --
A. -- that was initial, that 40 hours I would be spending
in Charlton branch for maybe the first year or so, where
I would get established, I would learn everything, I
would pick everything up. And then we would see,
because my intention was to buy another Post Office,
expand this one, you know, buy other properties. That
was my aim.
Q. Mr Abdulla, the only relevance of the 18 hours --
A. I was very ambitious.
Q. -- to anything was, if you served that amount of time,
you would be entitled to certain allowances, a
substitution allowance, if you weren't there. That is
the only relevance of it.
A. I was not aware of any allowances.
Q. Okay. Let's leave that point there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can I just check a point with you,
Mr Cavender, because I think we have gone slightly
off-piste.
At {Day4/41:20} of today's transcript you said:
"At the interview, no one required you to say you
must work a minimum of so many hours a week, did they?"
I understand Ms Ridge's signed note as suggesting
that it was agreed at the interview that there would be
at least 18 hours. Have I misunderstood that?
MR CAVENDER: Yes, I think so. Because as I said, the only
relevance, and we will see this more generally, of the
18 hours is you are then entitled to certain allowances
if you do that. There is no requirement --
A. No, allowances are not highlighted. I did not know
anything about holidays --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, Mr Abdulla, just sit there
quietly. This is a point I am exploring.
In terms of the factual case, have I misunderstood
Ms Ridge's signed note at {D1.4/1/1}, or should
I interpret the Post Office's case, as page {Day4/41:20}
of today's transcript, about what was put to Mr Abdulla
at the interview. That is all I want to know.
MR CAVENDER: The Post Office's case is that they have
internal checks after an interview to see what has been
said and how the postmaster is going to perform. So far
as service is concerned, no personal service at all is
required or ever mentioned. The only relevance of
checking whether 18 hours is going to be provided is
because you are then allowed, if they have holiday, to
have a substitute. And that is what I imagine she will
say if asked.
So if you read into the D1 document that somehow
that is a requirement that has been agreed, then that is
the wrong interpretation.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am not talking about the legal
consequences, I am just talking about the factual point
that is being put about the interview.
Am I to take the note at the moment at face value
signed by Ms Ridge, or is this something we have to wait
until we have her give evidence about, about what was
put to Mr Abdulla or agreed with him, or taken as read,
because 18 is obviously less than 40?
MR CAVENDER: It's the latter, taken as read.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Taken as read.
MR CAVENDER: Taken as read, because he said he would do 40.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Simply because obviously, and it's an
obvious point, 18 is less than 40.
MR CAVENDER: Exactly.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay.
MR CAVENDER: If we can move on, we got rather bogged down
there, to {E4/33/2}, please. At the top of that page
she records you as saying:
"Feels the partnership between Post Office and
subpostmaster benefits both businesses, may be problems
if there are any conflicts of issues."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. That is her recording something you have said.
I suggest to you what you --
A. Sorry, "may be problems if there are any ..." That is
not what I would have said, sorry. This is her notes,
this is what she is writing, and this is probably
afterwards or maybe during. It may be that she might
have assumed that from -- but it is not what I said.
Q. The point I want to put to you is a rather different
one. When you were talking about "partnership" here,
you were using it colloquially, in the sort of cuddly
sense I think that you referred to earlier --
A. I was referring to the fact that you're working
together, so you're working together to make money, and
that was both the Post Office's and my primarily --
primary goal, was to make money. Increase sales and
make money.
Q. Going to the idea of training assistants, et cetera, you
knew the training of assistants was something that you
were responsible for, am I right?
A. Training -- I have to be specific here because there was
no way I could train them on Horizon, I wasn't savvy --
I wasn't knowledgeable enough on Horizon to train
anyone.
Q. But once you had had your training you could cascade
that down in the normal way?
A. No.
Q. You were a computer champion, I believe --
A. No. As I mentioned before, you are taking that out of
context. Computer champion in that term didn't mean
that I was an IT expert, all it meant was I was relaying
information. You had a champion for various things,
they would relay information to head office. So you are
putting words where they are not supposed to be.
Because I did mention before the fact that it just meant
I was relaying information to and from head office. It
doesn't mean I was an IT expert. I have never been
an IT expert. All I can do is Word, Excel, basic
things.
But, yes, just going back ... I have lost where
I was now.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just wait, Mr Cavender will put his next
question.
MR CAVENDER: So we have seen in the summary of contract
terms I have shown you earlier today, clearly assistants
are your responsibility and your responsibility to train
them.
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. So why are you saying -- and you plead this I think at
paragraph 32 of your IPOC, I am not taking you to it,
I don't have time -- you say somehow you thought it was
Post Office's job to train assistants?
MR GREEN: My Lord, I am sorry. Before this witness gave
evidence I spoke to my learned friend, directed him
precisely to that paragraph, and explained what the
position was in relation to it and discussed that we
dealt with it in that manner, and I said "If you are
going to raise the issue, that clarification becomes
important". He said "I wasn't going to", and I left it
there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What clarification, sorry? A
clarification in-chief?
MR GREEN: No, my Lord. There was one clarification of
a point in his Particulars of Claim which he had not
addressed in his evidence-in-chief which relates to this
very paragraph.
MR CAVENDER: I am going to give him the chance to do that
now, that's why I'm taking him to it.
A. Okay, I can answer it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, all three of you, please,
just ...
Mr Green, just so I understand, you are saying you
wished to make a clarification but did not do so, is
that right?
MR GREEN: I raised an issue --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, I'm not interested in your chat,
I am asking you a specific, precise point. When you say
"clarification", are you talking about a clarification
of the evidence?
MR GREEN: No, it wasn't covered in his evidence. It was
only a pleadings point on paragraph 32.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. If it is a pleadings point we
don't need to deal with it now. You can sit down and
Mr Cavender can pursue it.
MR CAVENDER: Can I go to {B5.4/2/10}, please.
Paragraph 32. As your counsel has just said, his
understanding is you want to alter or amend the second
part of paragraph 32 which says at the moment:
"... which reflected the claimant's understanding
that it was the defendant's obligation to provide
training to assistants."
Do you see that?
A. Yes. This is --
Q. Would you like to tell me --
A. I'm trying to.
Q. -- what you would like that to say?
A. So this would be reflected -- okay, I'll start from the
beginning:
"The defendant provided training on new products
directly to the claimant's assistants ..."
Which they did. So this training -- every manager
would come in when there was a new product, we would
have leaflets to give to the customer. So it was only
not even a half an hour training session where whoever
was free, and if it wasn't busy on the tills, they would
come with myself and have the training in the back
office. So I had a five counter office. So maybe it
was two or three with me having -- just going through
what we need to sell to the customers, what we need to
say to them, and the leaflet that we had to give out,
take their details, and then someone from the
Post Office would phone them and get more information.
Because we weren't really selling, we were just taking
details off the customers so they could ring them back,
someone who knew what they were talking about.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, you really are going to have
to rein in these very long expositions, okay?
A. I am just painting a picture --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I do know that. But Mr Cavender is
going to put to you some specific questions and I would
just like you to concentrate on his questions, please.
MR CAVENDER: It is really the second part of this that your
counsel wanted to alter, where you say:
"... which reflected the claimant's understanding
that it was the defendant's obligation to provide
training to assistants."
So my question really is: what is your position --
A. Through myself.
Q. What is your position as to your obligation to provide
training to assistants?
A. Through myself, yes.
Q. You were going to do it?
A. I was going to do it, but occasionally they would --
well, most of the time the staff would be training with
myself in the back office. But if they were all busy,
then I would receive the training and I would relay it
on to the staff. So this should say just through me, so
this should -- it was really indirectly.
Q. If we move away from the products, so I have the
products point, but it is the more general point
which --
A. No, this is regarding products. It's on paragraph 32.
This is about products. It is nothing to do with
Horizon or anything because I could not train anyone on
Horizon.
Q. So you are saying 32 should be limited simply to
products, really? That is how we should read it?
A. Well, that is what it is. That is what it says there,
it's just about products.
Q. Well, no, it's:
"... which reflected the claimant's understanding
that it was the defendant's obligation to provide
training to assistants."
A. The whole paragraph is about products.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay. Mr Cavender, does that deal with
that one?
MR CAVENDER: I think it does, my Lord, yes.
Is that a convenient time for a break, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think it might be a good idea.
Mr Abdulla, you have got ten minutes. We are all
going to have a break for ten minutes. Please do not
talk to anyone about the case. Don't feel you have to
stay in the courtroom, you really don't. Go and stretch
your legs but be back in ten minutes.
Thank you all very much. Back at two minutes to
12 o'clock.
(11.51 am)
(A short break)
(12.00 pm)
MR CAVENDER: So Mr Abdulla, moving on in time then
to December 2006 when Post Office wrote to you to inform
you that your application was successful, do you
remember that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you received a letter from Post Office informing you
of that fact, am I right?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Can I take you to a copy of that letter {E4/2/1}. This
letter as you can see is in fact dated 7 April 2005 in
error. I am suggesting to you this was sent to you in
the early part of December 2006. Do you remember
receiving it then?
A. Was there another one sent with the correct date?
Q. No.
A. This was the one?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes ... (Pause)
Q. Take your time. Look at page 2 if you like {E4/2/2}.
I see you smiling?
A. Yes, I see your sarcasm.
Q. If you want to go to page 5, there are various
appendices.
A. Yes, I remember.
Q. It's 1M. Point 1:
"You will be bound by the terms of the standard
subpostmasters contract ..."
Et cetera. It is your copy. I think you had to
sign and return a copy, didn't you? And we see that
page at {E4/2/8} of this document, appendix 1M return
copy?
A. Yes, I believe -- yes, this was when I had to send my
bank details and other documents.
Q. Does that help you? Do you accept you received this in
early December 2006, this whole letter?
A. Is this -- have you shown me the whole thing?
Q. No, it goes on. It has next of kin, et cetera.
After -- look at page 8 and 9, that is the return thing
which you signed and returned, I understand. So page
{E4/2/8} and page {E4/2/9}. Then turn over to page
{E4/2/10} where you would have signed it. Then page
{E4/2/11} is a next of kin form.
A. Yes.
Q. Then page {E4/2/13} is ethnic classifications and
various other stuff. Then documents in --
A. Yes, this all look familiar, yes.
Q. Then documents in appointment pack at page {E4/2/15}, if
you look at that, please. Then go to page {E4/2/16} to
see what that contains.
So you had received these documents in early
December 2006, yes?
A. So far as I can remember, yes. Some of the pages are
familiar, yes.
Q. And we know you got them because at bundle {E4/45/1} we
see appendix 1M, the return copy of appendix 1M, and
rather oddly we see it starts at paragraph 6, do you see
that on {E4/45/1} in terms of the paragraph numbering?
A. Yes.
Q. And that reflects, if you compare it and go back to
{E4/2/8}, appendix 1M also starts idiosyncratically at
paragraph 6, do you see that?
A. Yes. Why is that?
Q. Don't worry about why that is. What I am putting to you
is that it is the same document, formatted in the same
way.
And we see from page {E4/45/2} your signature on
this document.
A. Didn't the previous document have 1 to 5 on? Didn't it
have anything before that? No?
Q. Can you answer this question, and I will take you to it
in a moment to deal with that point. At page {E4/45/2}
we see your signature?
A. That is my signature.
Q. On 11 December 2006?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is safe to assume you received at least the
appendix 1M return copy on that date?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was part of a larger document I have just shown
you at {E4/2/1}. So it is reasonably safe to assume,
I suggest to you, that you would have received all the
documents as you seem to be accepting that you would.
Is that fair?
A. It is not 100 per cent necessary that I would have
received everything that was -- that you have said. But
yes, as I said before, the pages do look familiar.
Q. And to answer your question --
A. But I can't be 100 per cent sure that I received
everything, especially the documents which were listed
on the table. I cannot be sure, because they are not
there, they are just numbers and just references.
Q. To answer your question about paragraph numbering,
I said I would go back. So {E4/2/5}, please.
A. Yes, so this is got 1 to --
Q. But this is your copy. Do you see this is the "your
copy" version?
A. Right.
Q. The "return copy" version at {E4/8/1} starts with
paragraph 6 at the top.
A. Where is number 5? That is missing.
Q. That is the idiosyncracy of the pagination. It's not
meant to. There isn't paragraphs 1 to 5 missing --
A. No. Where is section 5, paragraph 5?
Q. As I say, it --
A. It goes from 1 to 4 and then 6 to 9.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have got a page with a paragraph 5 on
but I might be looking at the wrong document.
A. Ah, here it is. That's a different document though.
MR CAVENDER: You mean {E4/2/6} has a paragraph 5 with the
opening hours et cetera?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am trying to work out which document
Mr Abdulla signed and sent back.
MR CAVENDER: He sent the one, my Lord, back at {E4/45/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: {E4/45/1} is the one he sent back.
MR CAVENDER: Page 1 and page 2, the signature being on
page 2. {E4/45/2}
A. Why would I send out --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, please, please.
That is the one of 11 December 2006.
MR CAVENDER: Correct.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But that isn't the document that was
sent as the appendix, is it? Because if you look back
to {E4/45/1}, it goes -- on that single page there is 6,
7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
MR CAVENDER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And the first page of the return copy
and the document you were putting to him I think stops
after paragraph 9. But I might be wrong.
MR CAVENDER: The one I put to him goes on --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The return copy {E4/2/8}. That page
stops, on that page, at paragraph 9, doesn't it?
MR CAVENDER: It doesn't have the opening hours.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you then go on to page {E4/2/9} ...
the content might be the same but it is a different --
MR CAVENDER: The formatting is different anyway.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay. It might not matter. So that is
the one he signed and sent back anyway,
11 December 2006.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
When you got this letter, presumably you would have
been pleased you had been appointed? Going back now to
{E4/2/1}.
A. Yes, I was very pleased.
Q. This was the first time you had seen the full contract
because so far you had only seen a summary of terms. We
have been through that this morning, haven't we?
A. As I said before, I have not received the contract,
never have. So again you are just going round the same
way and asking me the same question.
I told you if I would have seen the contract what
I would have done. I don't want to keep repeating
myself.
Q. Let's have a look at what the letter says in {E4/2/1}.
It says:
"Your appointment will be subject to:
"1. Your written acceptance of the subpostmasters
contract and other terms and conditions set out in
appendix 1M ..."
Do you see that?
A. I'll tell you the truth again, I was very pleased at
receiving this letter and that I was successful. So the
contract was -- obviously it's important, but I thought
that I would get that on a later date as it is
a modified one. Maybe it was still being modified or
whatever. But it wasn't a concern to me because I knew
they would send it anyway or I thought they would send
it anyway at a later date.
Q. Let's look at {E4/2/2} with that in mind:
"Appendix 2 lists the documents in the appointment
pack and gives full details of the actions required of
you ... In particular, the appointment pack contains a
copy of the modified subpostmasters contract, setting
out the contractual relationship with Post Office ..."
A. Yes, again --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Sorry, where are you reading from?
MR CAVENDER: {E4/2/2}, under the narrative of what was in
appendix 2.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: He.
MR CAVENDER: Now, you would have read that because this is
the first page of the letter, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You say you hadn't seen the contract at this stage, that
is your evidence. This is the first time you have seen
a copy of the contract or reference to it being
included --
A. Reference to it.
Q. If it hadn't been included, yes? In the same way as on
one of your pharmaceutical jobs, if they hadn't included
some of the medicines or --
A. Medicines and a contract is a different thing.
Q. -- you would have asked for it, wouldn't you?
A. I did at a later stage enquire about it.
Q. Now, we know you didn't ask for it at this stage --
A. Not at this stage.
Q. Then can I infer from that that it must have been there
then, because --
A. No.
Q. -- if it hadn't been you would have asked for it?
A. No. As I said before, it wasn't something that was
really important to me. I trusted the Post Office and
its dealings. I trusted the brand, the Post Office,
a nationwide institution, and I wouldn't have thought
there would be anything malicious or untoward in
the contract. So I just was waiting for it to come at
the office when I started, which I presumed it would
come at the office maybe, because as I said it was being
modified, there was maybe some things that were not
finished on it.
So it wasn't a concern to me at this stage. I was
just happy that they had accepted my application and
I was successful and I was going to be the subpostmaster
of Charlton Post Office.
Q. Mr Abdulla, appendix 2 says:
"In particular, the appointment pack contains a copy
of the modified subpostmasters contract, setting out the
contractual relationship ..."
The very thing you accepted earlier on was something
you were expecting, and here it is.
A. If I was expecting it, it doesn't mean I was expecting
it at that time. I could have expected it ... I hadn't
started yet, so there was still time for me to start.
They could have sent it at a later date, maybe a day or
two after. But again, I was just so excited, so happy
that -- it wasn't in the front of my mind. It wasn't,
okay, I need -- the contract is not there, I need to see
the contract right now, I need to do the phone calls, do
this, do this. It wasn't like that. It is just a, you
know, you are in a good place, a good feeling, and you
are not thinking about things like that.
Q. When you signed and returned appendix 1M, which we
looked at {E4/45/1}, you were signing to agreeing,
amongst others things, to be bound by the terms of the
subpostmasters contract for services at modified payment
offices, weren't you?
A. Yes, I -- the terms, that is right, but not the actual
contract.
Q. Pause there. What is the difference between the terms
and --
A. I don't know.
Q. -- the actual contract?
A. As I said, I have not had a contract like this before.
Every contract I have signed has always had the contract
and you sign the contract. So if I am bound by the
terms, I'm ... Again, I was -- I was sort of
commercially naive and I was -- I hadn't had a business
before, so I wasn't -- I was just happy that I was
accepted, you know. And then, as I say, I trusted the
Post Office to send it at later date and I trusted the
brand. You know, you don't -- with the Post Office you
associate -- you don't associate anything bad with the
Post Office.
Q. Go to {E4/45/2}, please, which is the signature page of
appendix 1M. You signed there to say:
"I, Mr Naushad Abdulla, fully understand and accept
these terms and conditions."
And you sign it.
A. I was accepting all the terms -- so it's not just about
the contract there. The contract is not even mentioned
there.
Q. Can we go back, to see if that is right, to {E4/45/1}
and go to paragraph 6 at the top, it says these --
A. Yes, it's highlighted with --
Q. -- words:
"You will be bound by the terms of the standard
subpostmasters contract for services at modified payment
offices."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So when you signed to say you understand and accept the
terms and conditions, I suggest --
A. I was willing to accept and be bound by the contract
because, as I said, I trusted the Post Office. So even
if I didn't have the contract with me, I was still happy
to be bound by the terms of the contract.
Q. So even if you were right and it wasn't in this pack,
which I don't accept for a moment, you were happy to be
bound by it on the basis that if you wanted it, you
would be sent a copy and it would be provided to you, is
that where you end up?
A. Yes, because this -- a contract -- I would have assumed
it was just a general contract to say this is how much
you would be earning, these are the products you will be
selling. A standard contract. I didn't expect it to
be -- you know, just a standard contract with standard
terms, whatever ...
Q. Standard terms. And you already had an insight, didn't
you, to what they would be because the Serv 135 document
I showed you earlier which morning had extracts from the
contract, so you knew some of the terms?
A. I read some of the terms.
Q. When you got the terms, you could have taken such legal
advice as you wanted to take upon them before signing
and returning the document at {E4/45/1}, couldn't you?
A. There was nothing here to suggest I should take any
legal advice. If the contract was there, then I would
have looked at the contract and I would have seen how
complicated and how vast it is, and all the different
clauses, then I would have spoken to someone about it
legally. But then with just -- with what was just there
in these couple of pages, I was happy not to have any
legal advice.
Q. But you are a businessman, you were setting up this
business --
A. I wasn't a businessman at this time, I was just
a salesperson, a salesman. I was not a businessman.
Q. You were setting up this business and you were taking
legal advice at the time on the purchase --
A. Legal advice regarding the purchase of a lease.
Q. Correct. And if you had wanted to, you could have asked
that or another legal adviser for legal advice on this
contract. If you had wanted to?
A. No, they were just business transfer agents -- sorry,
they were just people who deal with -- I forgot the
name, but they deal --
Q. They were solicitors, a firm of solicitors?
A. Yes, but they were just dealing with house purchases and
that sort of thing, business purchases.
Q. But you are aware solicitors have other --
A. Yes, but the ones I was dealing with were only
business -- what do you call them? I forgot what they
are called. Conveyancers or something.
Q. Did you go and visit the conveyancers --
A. No. No, I didn't go and visit them.
Q. But if you had wanted to you could have said on the
phone, "I'm interested in the detail about the lease.
I have this contract. Have you got anyone who can give
me advice on it?"
A. Again, you said I have this contract when I didn't have
the contract. So why would I suggest them to give me
legal advice on a contract when I didn't have the
contract? If I would have had the contract, again,
I don't know how many times I have to say it ...
Q. So I suggest to you if it wasn't there, Mr Abdulla, you
would have asked for it, and you have been pretty
straightforward about that. And you didn't ask for
it --
A. Yes, but I was in no rush. So I did enquire -- not at
this particular time but at a later date. Before
actual -- before taking over, before going -- being
subpostmaster I did enquire about it.
Q. You did?
A. I did.
Q. Of whom?
A. With the area manager.
Q. Who was that?
A. Christine Adams.
Q. And when do you say you did that?
A. On transfer day.
Q. Do you mention that in your witness statement?
A. It's not come up before, so it's only highlighted now.
Q. So it is not mentioned in your witness statement?
A. It wasn't an issue before.
Q. What, the fact of the contract and whether or not you
had received it at any particular time wasn't an issue
before?
A. It was just on passing, when I was signing the various
documents, there was something about the contract
and I said "I haven't received this", and she said "If
you haven't received it you will receive it. It will
come to the office", or whatever. It was just a general
passing. But it wasn't an issue and it has not been --
I have stated that I've not received the contract, but
you have only brought it up now that it is -- why didn't
you make a phone call? Why didn't you enquire about it?
So you've only brought it up now, and that is why I am
referring to it now, but I wouldn't have referred to it
before this.
Q. I suggest to you if that were true, the account you have
just given, we would have found it clearly in your
witness statement, because it would be an important
point and you must have realised that, Mr Abdulla.
A. I don't believe so, I don't think -- I think -- I
don't -- as I said, it was just enquiring in person, it
wasn't something that I was -- it was just when I was
signing the documents and it was just something
I mentioned.
Q. We are going to branch transfer day now, that's
24 January 2007. Do you remember who the Post Office
rep was who did the transfer with you? Do you know
the name of the person?
A. There was no one doing the transfer with me. There was
the area manager who was there, she was helping out with
the -- Christine Adams, she was helping out with the
audit. I was outside, I was not allowed inside where
the actual office is because obviously they were doing
their work and they were counting cash and stock. So
I was waiting outside. There was a few people there
just doing all the audits but I was outside.
I was also at the time just on the phone finalising
the lease and the payment going through to the landlord,
and that sort of thing, so I was busy doing that sort of
thing.
Q. In terms of the various documents, you signed an
acknowledgement of appointment. We see that at
{D1.4/3/1}. Do you see that? Do you remember signing
that?
A. When was this? Was it transfer day?
Q. Yes. Yes, this is on transfer day.
A. Yes, I signed a lot of documents on transfer day. There
was no time to read, no time to go through them. They
were just handed --
Q. Pause there.
A. They were just handed to me, "Just sign this", next one,
"Sign this", next one. If they'd wanted me to read them
through and go through them --
Q. Can I ask a question, please --
A. -- they would have sent them a couple of days before and
I could have gone through and read them and then on
transfer day I could have just signed them.
Q. Mr Abdulla, dealing with this particular document, if
you had wanted more time to read it before you signed
it, you could have asked for more time, couldn't you?
A. No, there was no time. It was -- everything was rushed.
We had finally done the -- they'd carried out the audit,
they'd finished the audit after the branch was closed,
I can't remember if it was closed half day or full day,
but anyway it went on until like about 6 o'clock,
7 o'clock --
Q. Mr Abdulla, this is a single page. Surely you had time
to read a single page? You would have read this single
page, wouldn't you?
A. I believe I could have even -- looking at it now, I can
just skim over it. But again, the documents were just
handed to me. This is just one of many. Other ones
were in -- like a couple of pages.
Q. Let's look at this because you were asked to sign this.
This is one of two or three documents in particular you
were asked to sign, we have seen in other cases as well.
It says:
"... agree to be bound by the terms of my
contract ..."
Pausing there. At this stage, on your case, you say
you may not have got a copy of the contract. Possibly.
You are not sure, but you say that is a possibility you
are asking the court to consider --
A. I never said it was a possibility. I said --
I categorically said that I did not receive the
contract. And signing a similar document before about
being bound by the terms of my contract, I have signed
a document similar to that, so why would I not sign this
document? Because it is the same thing. So without
seeing the contract, again I trusted the dealings with
the Post Office, and I would have signed even if -- the
day was so rushed, it was -- you didn't have any chance
to ask any questions on what you were signing and so on.
And actually this is the bit where -- on transfer
day, this is when I did mention -- when I was talking
earlier about mentioning it to Christine Adams, and this
was the time I did mention it.
Q. But I thought you didn't have any time when it was put
in front you. Now you're saying you had time to ask
questions and in fact asked a question.
A. There was limited time, there was limited --
Q. Which is it, Mr Abdulla? Is it that you had no time --
A. It was both.
Q. -- and they're put in front of you and you signed one
after another, or did you read them, discuss them and
ask questions as you are now asking the court to
believe?
A. No.
Q. Which is true?
A. No, no. It was only on this issue, because again it is
a one-page document. Other documents were two or three
pages, where you would have to go through -- just turn
the pages and sign at the last page. You don't have
time to go through them. But this was a one-page
document --
Q. Mr Abdulla, I put it to you that you are making it up as
you go along.
A. No. I did mention before that I mentioned to
Christine Adams about the contract during transfer day,
during going through the papers, and this was the stage,
and now bringing this up has highlighted that again.
I'm not making anything up.
Q. Go to {E4/51/1}, please. Another document I think you
would have been shown on transfer day. Do you remember
seeing this highlighting certain sections of your
contract?
A. Is this something I was handed on transfer day to sign?
Q. Yes.
A. Again I wouldn't have had time to go through all of
that.
Q. It's a three-page document --
A. It doesn't matter --
Q. We see your signature at {E4/51/3} --
A. That's what I'm saying, there were pages like that. It
was just -- the last page was shown to you to sign and
you just sign it. You don't go through the pages, you
just -- she just highlighted where I need to sign and
then I just signed it.
Q. Can I be clear who you say was at transfer day.
A. I can only remember Christine Adams.
Q. Look at paragraph 55 of your witness statement, please.
{C1/4/11}
A. Yes.
Q. Read 55 to yourself. (Pause)
Have you read it?
A. Yes.
Q. You say that Ms Stevens attended and assisted with the
audit, no mention --
A. Yes, Christine Adams changed to Christine Stevens, or
the other way around, because she must have got married.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It says "Stevens" on the signed
appointment anyway.
A. It's the same person.
MR CAVENDER: I don't believe that is true, Mr Abdulla. My
instructions are they are not the same person.
A. I think you need to do your research then because that
is definitely true. Christine Stevens is
Christine Adams.
Q. Going back to {E4/51/1} and this document, you would
have had a chance to read this, because you wouldn't
sign something that is untrue, would you, Mr Abdulla?
And you do say at {E4/51/3}:
"I, Naushad Abdulla, hereby acknowledge that I have
read and understood these extracts."
Do you see that?
A. Again, they were just handed to me and just told me to
sign, where to sign. It wasn't -- I couldn't read
anything through. The only one I read was because it
was one page, and it was just a few lines about
the contract, that was highlighted, and that is where
I made an enquiry about the contract.
Q. Is the declaration made here then true or untrue, the
one you have signed on the page I have just shown you?
A. Sorry, what --
Q. "I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understood
these extracts."
Was that declaration you made and signed true or
untrue?
A. It depends how you look at it. At the time I didn't
have time to read it, so you can take what you will from
that. I didn't have time to read it, I just signed it.
Q. These were extracts from your contract, we see that at
{E4/51/1} at the top:
"Dear subpostmaster.
"... I would like to draw your attention to extracts
from your Contract."
Capital C. That was fine with you because of course
you had already got a copy of your contract, hadn't you?
A. Oh my God.
Do I need to answer that again?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, if it is the same answer as
before, why don't you just say --
A. It is the same answer, my Lord.
MR CAVENDER: The third document you certainly signed on
that day is at {E4/54/1}, something called an ARS 110.
Do you remember looking at that? You have signed it,
yes? The incoming postmaster signature.
A. Yes, I signed it. That is my signature.
Q. What this does is indicate the handing over, I suggest
to you, of the five volumes you see there, together with
the various Horizon guides.
A. Okay, let me explain. The volumes were in a big -- a
lever-arch file, maybe one or two depending on the size
of the volumes. So it wasn't like you could go through
each individual manual and, you know, check that there.
So what would have happened was they would have just
looked to make sure that they were in that file and then
I would have signed it.
So it is not something that you would go through
individually and go through each one, that is how it
looks like, but it is not like that. Because obviously
you are just having -- just operating on Horizon how to
sell a postal order, fishing licences and so on and so
on. So again, as I said, there is no time to go through
all that. You are just signing and carrying on with the
next document.
Q. Can we go back to the acknowledgement of appointment
{D1.4/3/1}. When you read in the middle of the page
there:
"... and agree to be bound by the terms of my
contract and by the rules contained in the book of rules
and the instructions contained in those postal
instructions issued to me."
You understood at the time that that included the
documents referred to --
A. No.
Q. -- in ARS 110 --
A. No. Those are the training manuals. Those are, sorry,
not training manuals, they are product manuals.
Q. What are?
A. They are how to actually sell a fishing licence, how to
enter it on Horizon. So you press that button for
a fishing licence for six months or that one for 12
months. Its nothing to do with any contractual issues.
Q. Mr Abdulla, what I suggest is:
"... the book of rules and instructions contained in
those postal instructions issued to me."
And your acknowledgement of appointment --
A. No, I don't think that it is referring to that.
Q. -- refers to those things listed in bundle {E4/54/1}.
A. I don't believe it refers to that. Even if it did, what
is the point of the argument? I don't understand. That
says "Counters Operation Manuals". If you go back,
where does it mention counters operation manuals?
Q. In terms of your expectations or the reasonable
expectations of --
A. Sorry, have we finished with that?
Q. Yes. It's your case, as I understand it, that you say
the contract was formed on branch transfer day. Take it
from me that that is your case.
A. Sorry, can you repeat that?
Q. It is your case that the contract between you and
Post Office was formed on branch transfer day.
A. What do you mean by contract?
Q. The contractual relationship was formed on that day.
Post Office say it was earlier --
A. That is the day I took over the Post Office, yes.
Q. Yes, that is as I understand your case.
My Lord, for your reference, it's paragraph 62 of
the IPOC.
Post Office say it was an earlier stage, namely,
when you signed the appointment letter we have seen you
signing. Can I just investigate what you accept that
the reasonable expectations of somebody in your position
at that time would have been. Firstly, you would have
expected that the Horizon system you were to use would
be a reasonably reliable IT system?
A. Yes, that is the assumption from -- from -- yes, I was
made to believe that it was a reliable and trustworthy
system because it was used by the Post Office for many
years. So I had no issues to doubt it when I started or
before I started.
Q. It would also be your expectation that you would be
provided with any necessary training on its use?
A. Sorry, I didn't catch --
Q. That you would be provided with any necessary training
on its use, on Horizon's use?
A. Yes. What is the question?
Q. That someone in your position at the time you formed the
contractual relationship, a reasonable person in your
position would have, as part of the background, thought
that necessary training on Horizon would be provided to
you?
A. Yes, I assume so, yes.
Q. Similarly, such a person would also have thought that
there would be a reasonable Helpline to assist you with
any difficulties going forwards?
A. Yes, I would have hoped for and I would have assumed
that there would be necessary support, not just the
Helpline, but many other avenues of support. But it was
limited.
Q. Can we move on then, if we can, into a different subject
which is deficit and cause of deficits or issues in your
branch. You deal with this at paragraph 88 and
following. I'm not going to go through this in huge
detail. But paragraph 88 starts at {C1/4/17}. In
particular, and you have read your witness statement,
you query a range of transaction corrections in
particular, and suggest that there is some possible
fault with Horizon. Also you have a criticism about
banks and cheques, broadly?
A. Yes. Do you want me to go in order?
Q. No, I --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think, Mr Abdulla, just wait, and
Mr Cavender will put probably bite-sized questions to
you.
MR CAVENDER: Exactly, I am just warming you up to the area.
We are talking about this now.
I firstly have to make clear to you that Post Office
don't accept what you say in any of those paragraphs,
and that would be the subject of tests in a future
trial. But one of the things that you do at
paragraph 90, just turn that up {C1/4/17}, is you look
at the transaction correction data disclosed and you go
through it and you have your potted views on those
transaction corrections.
A. That is right.
Q. Can we establish one thing first with you. You accept
that you don't have to accept transaction corrections,
do you? They're suggested to you --
A. You have to accept one way or another. You have to
accept it straightaway and pay in the cash if it is
a deficit, or you accept it centrally, and then by
branch transfer day you have to make good the loss, or
whether it is a surplus or whether it is a loss, before
you can roll over to the next trading period. So you
have to accept it. So your theory was wrong.
Q. Let's go to the manual, shall we, because that isn't
true. As I think you must realise, you can either
accept it, as you say, and if an amount needs to be
paid, pay, or you settle it centrally and dispute it?
A. There are two options. You accept it straightaway or
you accept it centrally, and then you have to accept it
in the end -- when it's a branch trading period you have
to accept it anyway because you can't roll over to the
next period, you cannot open your office until that has
been rolled over. So the next day you would not be able
to open the office if it is not rolled over.
Q. I suggest that is not right and I can show you the
manual on this. It's at --
A. I think I know what I am talking about.
Q. {F4/21/11}. Is this the manual you would have been
familiar with? If you go to {F4/21/1}, that is the
contents page. Just look at that first. This is
something you had in your branch, is it? It dates from
2006.
A. No, what I used to use was just a double-sided laminated
sheet of paper to do my balancing. I didn't have this.
Q. You are saying you didn't have it. It wasn't in
the branch, you don't think?
A. It wasn't at the branch when I took over, no.
MR CAVENDER: Can I just check one thing before we go on ...
MR GREEN: My Lord, can I just note a concern about the
foundation for the way that line of questioning was put,
given that 46.1 of the Post Office's own Defence
expressly says it is admitted that there is no option
within Horizon to dispute a shortfall. I didn't object
because I didn't want to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have the reference. Thank you very
much.
MR GREEN: I am most grateful. (Pause)
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, my learned friend raised a pleading
point. If we go to paragraph 39 of the general Defence.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is this the Generic Defence?
MR CAVENDER: Indeed. It's at {B3/2/13}, paragraph 39.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Sorry?
MR CAVENDER: {B3/2/13}, paragraph 39.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just give me one second. I wasn't
necessarily going to require you to deal with the
pleading point now unless you wanted to.
MR CAVENDER: It is a convenient place for the witness,
actually.
Can you cast your eye over, please, paragraph 39,
headed "Transaction Corrections". Do you have that on
screen?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have you seen this document before,
Mr Abdulla? You might not have done. It is a pleading
in the litigation.
A. No.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Just read the whole -- from
39, "Transaction Corrections", just read that page, and
then Mr Cavender is probably going to ask you a question
or two. (Pause)
A. Yes, that is fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Go over the page to subparagraph (6)
{B3/2/14}:
"If the subpostmaster wishes to query or dispute the
transaction correction, he or she should contact the
person identified in the transaction correction
notification."
Et cetera. So --
A. This is for disputing, it is not to accept a transaction
correction.
Q. Yes --
A. That is totally different.
Q. But what you do, don't you, if you don't want to accept
a transaction correction, you settle it centrally and
then ring to dispute it?
A. You dispute it if you want to dispute it.
Q. Yes.
A. But there is not an option when you are accepting it.
So you accept it straightaway or you accept it
centrally. There is not an option of accepting
centrally and disputing.
Q. No, you don't accept it centrally, you settle it
centrally --
A. That is what I mean.
Q. You move it in, in order to allow you to roll over into
the next period. Yes? So you settle it centrally,
don't accept it, and you then ring to dispute it --
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. Can I finish? Just to put to you what I suggest the
system is. Then that enables you to roll over?
A. No. You need to accept it centrally. You settle it
centrally. What that really means is you are accepting
it centrally. It's the same thing --
Q. I suggest to you it is not --
A. So when you accept it centrally --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just hold on. I want to hear the
explanation. You explain your choices.
A. Okay. So say a transaction correction pops up, you have
two options, two boxes. So you have either one is to
accept it now straightaway and put whatever it is, put
the money in or take the money out, whatever, and then
the other box says "settle centrally".
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What does that mean?
A. What that does, it saves that shortage or loss or
whatever, it saves it in -- I don't know how it works
but it saves it somewhere and then, when the branch
transfer period comes around at the end of the month, so
that -- that shows up. So even if you forget about it,
before you roll over to the next branch trading period
for the next day, that will pop up and it will not go
away until you accept it there and then; you have to put
the money in there and then if it is a loss or take the
money out, whatever it is, you have to make good that
situation before you actually roll -- you don't dispute
it at that time. You cannot because -- if you want, you
can but then you will be there -- you ideally should
dispute it as soon as you get the transaction
correction. But at that stage you have to accept it and
then roll over to the next trading period, so you can
open the next day.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Whatever your understanding, you understood
that you could dispute it? That you had to do something
to facilitate the rollover, yes? Whatever that thing
was --
A. Why would you --
Q. Can I finish? Whatever that thing was that would -- it
would effect a rollover, so you have a zero balance in
the next trading period. But the issues over the
transaction -- any you had would still be live and be
for you able to contest. You understood that much,
didn't you?
A. Sorry, can you just repeat that?
Q. We are disagreeing about whether you had to accept or
settle and what settle meant. Just leave that aside.
You understood that, by following the procedure we have
talked about, about moving into the suspense account,
yes --
A. It is not really a suspense account.
Q. -- whether it is accepting or settling centrally,
whatever that is, that would allow you to do two things:
one, roll over and go to zero in the new trading period,
yes?
A. If you have -- if you have dealt with that matter.
Q. You have dealt with it. But you have "settled" it in
a way which keeps open your possibility of arguing about
it?
A. No, no. Even if it is open, even if it is in dispute,
you cannot roll over until you have sorted it out before
branch transfer period.
Q. I suggest you are wrong about that.
A. No, I suggest I am right.
Q. Moving on then, 102, {C1/4/20}. You say:
"As far as I recall there is no process in Horizon
which required proof that I was the person accepting the
transaction correction."
Do you see that?
A. Sorry, can we just go back? If you are disputing it, it
will still be under dispute but you still have to sort
it out at that time. So that is when you get -- in
the next trading period you could get a transaction
correction to correct that correction. To nullify that.
So it is still in dispute. Or it may not be in dispute
but a transaction correction could come to reverse that
correction on the next trading period. But, to roll
over, you have to accept that correction, even though it
is in dispute. That is another matter and they are
dealing with that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. Thank you.
MR CAVENDER: But the simple point is, Mr Abdulla, you knew
on that that there is no particular pressure on you to
accept something you didn't want to accept simply
because you were coming up to a rollover period.
Because you settle it centrally and dispute it.
A. No, you -- I just explained it to you. You have to
accept it whether you like it or not. Whether you -- it
is still in dispute if you have disputed it. Whether
you agree with it or not, you have to accept it. It is
not that you have a choice. On transfer rollover period
you have to accept it.
Q. Let's move on then. I was dealing with paragraph 102
and whether you could know whether you or an assistant
accepted a transaction correction. Presumably you could
only do that if you shared your ID and password with
assistants. Because every assistant or postmaster has
their own ID, don't they, which they sign in with?
A. Yes, I was not -- I couldn't remember this point,
whether it would pop up on all the screens when you get
a transaction correction or whether it would just pop up
on my screen. So if it would pop up on everyone's
screen, then obviously anyone else could accept it. But
I can't -- that is one of the things I can't remember.
But during the audit it came up and someone accepted it
on my behalf, when I wasn't there. I was on holiday
when the audit took place leading to my suspension.
But, yes, this is a point which I wasn't sure of.
Q. But I am right as well, am I not, that you can tell who
is on Horizon at any given moment by their password and
ID? Retrospectively you can say, well, it was assistant
X or Y unless you have happened to tell them what your
ID or password was. Which I guess you wouldn't do.
A. No, you wouldn't know -- if that was the case and it
popped up on every screen, you wouldn't know who
accepted it until later when -- actually I don't know
how -- maybe the code of their terminal would show up
afterwards where they have accepted it. But
I don't know how it would show who has accepted it if it
was the case.
Q. I suggest it would. All transactions -- when you use
Horizon, you put in your ID and your password and that
is peculiar to that person. The only thing it does on
that screen is record it.
A. But how would I know -- if someone is on another till,
how would I know they have accepted it? Or if I am away
from my till and I have not seen the pop-up, how
would I know that other person has accepted it there and
then?
Q. Moving on, one of the other problems you talk about,
paragraph 129, was investigating {C1/4/25} problems with
cheques. Do you see that?
A. Yes, there were a lot of problems with cheques. The
whole system is flawed. My Lord, if someone -- we have
a cut-off time about quarter to five every day. Now,
the cheques -- we do the dailies on individual basis, so
we closed one till and -- I would go first and then it
would go in order. So I would do my dailies, get the
daily -- the Giros and so on and put them in my bundle
and then take them to the back office, get ready for the
back office work that I need to do. So the next person,
John Speller, he would do his one, close his counter.
It would only take five minutes, and then he would do
his and then give them to me at the back office and so
on and so on. There was Mr P, Mr Shah and Poppy at the
end.
So they would take turns in doing that. When I had
all the -- so I was doing the back office stuff. The
next person, John, would open. He would have maybe
another customer come in with a Giro cheque or any type
of cheque. Now, that cut-off time is done. But in
Horizon it still shows for that day. So now I have sent
off the dailies when the postman comes; I give him all
the daily paperwork to -- for him to go to Chesterfield
at head office. What would happen is this -- so a Giro
cheque would come in afterwards. It is registered on
that day but it would go out the next day. Or maybe, if
it is a weekend, it would go out in a couple of days.
What would happen is, just because it is late, they
say -- a transaction correction comes in that cheques
are missing. They have gone lost. I have kept them.
It is not in my name. I can't do anything with them.
I can't benefit from them. So just because they are
late a couple of days I get a transaction correction to
say that cheques have gone missing.
So then, when they do receive them after a couple --
a day or two later, and then it goes through the process
and then they find out, yes, okay, we've got the cheques
and then I get a reversing transaction correction to say
the cheques have turned up. Surely a ten-year old can
come up with a better system than that to say: okay, why
don't we wait, have some kind of system where we receive
the cheques and not send out transaction corrections
willy-nilly, and a better system could be made up. It
is just -- you are just wasting transaction corrections
where I need to put money in and then take money out,
keep putting money in and taking money out. It just
doesn't make sense.
Q. Can I refer you to paragraph 129 of your witness
statement, please {C1/4/26}. You say there:
"It is very difficult to investigate any problems
with cheques ..."
You say:
"Once cheques were sent off to Post Office I did not
have any records in the branch to review so I was
dependent on Post Office from then on."
You must have known that it was in Post Office's
manual that you are required to keep the remittance out
slip for your cheques in branch for a period of two
years?
A. I am talking about the individual cheques which were
sent out, as I said, after the cut-off time. They would
be going out for the next day. So the cheques --
Q. The remittance out slip though, you say you would have
no information. Surely you would have kept for two
years the remittance out slip --
A. There was a docket, where we put on top of the cheques,
and there would be a copy -- there would be my copy of
that.
Q. You knew there was a requirement in the instructions, it
is {F4/22/15} as it happens, that you keep the
remittance out slip for your cheques in your branch for
two years and:
"Destroy the Horizon counter daily cheques listing
report."
Is the instruction. Do you see that on the second
box from the top?
A. That's fine. I kept a copy. I'm not disputing that.
I am disputing the cheques that have gone missing. How
do I know which cheques have gone missing? Because when
they go out the next day, they are bundled with the next
day cheques. They are all mixed together. So the ones
that are from yesterday, if you like, I don't keep them
separate. There is not a separate docket for them.
There is not a separate envelope or anything. It is
just all together. That is what I am referring to.
Obviously you keep a copy of the docket, the one you
send and the one -- the back slip.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can I just check something, Mr Abdulla,
so I understand. I assume the remittance out slip just
has the total of the value of all of the cheques?
A. That is correct.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is right.
A. That is correct, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Maybe we can produce a copy of
a pro forma remittance.
MR CAVENDER: Very well. So moving on from that to the
audit on 6 April 2009. Do you remember that?
A. How could I forget.
Q. I thought you might say. That is {E4/67/1} --
A. Actually I don't remember that because I was on holiday
in Dubai and I found out through a phone call from my
father. Obviously it ruined the holiday, and I thought
it was a joke in the beginning but, you know, it was
a sick joke if it was.
Q. I am not sure it is a joke, is it, if you have
a shortfall --
A. But -- if you let me continue -- yes, so I don't
remember the day as such as what happened in
the Post Office because I wasn't there, and so -- and
knew the dates I was going away and they still carried
out an audit when I wasn't there, which I believe that
is very unfair because I didn't have -- I gave the dates
to the Post Office; these are the dates I am going away.
I don't find that fair that they would carry out
an audit when I'm not in the country.
Q. Mr Abdulla, do you find a total shortage of £4,900-odd
in the branch that you are responsible for a joke?
A. I'm not saying it was a joke -- I am saying someone,
like a friend of mine or something, would have played
a sick joke, like saying things like that. It is
a matter of saying -- it's a figure of speech that
I thought it was a joke, because it was a shock.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You mean when you got the phone call?
A. That is right, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I see.
MR CAVENDER: When we look at the -- what we are looking at
is the audit report here, just for an overview. You
have a difference in cash of £4,300-odd, you have
a difference in stock of £360, postage of £151, foreign
currency of some £9 and some £20 under "other". So
quite a few different areas of discrepancies, is that
fair?
A. This was a five counter main office, my Lord, with
regularly having over £100,000 to £150,000 in cash in
a walk-in safe, so it wasn't a small safe, it was
a walk-in safe. So a considerable amount of money and
stock in total. So just to give you the background, and
£4,393, it is a lot of money, yes, but in context of the
overall office, obviously it is not as significant as it
looks on this page.
Q. Because what you were telling Post Office in your
accounting is that you had £4,900 more than in fact you
did, in effect?
A. No, I didn't carry out this audit so I was not saying
anything here. I wasn't even in the country.
Q. What you had been doing in the previous months on
rollover is signing a certification, wasn't it, in
the form -- I can show you. It is at {F4/21/46}. At
the top there. If we can zoom into the box at the top.
A. No, this is from a manual. It is not the actual thing
that you sign. It is not the document --
Q. It is the wording though:
"I certify the content of this balancing and trading
statement is an accurate reflection of cash and stock at
this branch."
You would have signed that every month, wouldn't
you?
A. Yes. On branch transfer day, the TP --
Q. Not branch transfer. On balancing day?
A. No, we do a balancing every week, which is the
mini-balance, it is called the BP, the balancing period.
Then you have -- this you sign on a monthly basis, on
a TP, a trading -- when the trading period ends for that
month.
Q. I understand. You personally signed that every month,
did you not?
A. I did.
Q. So when we go then to bundle {E4/82/1}, which is the
notes of the interview you had when this discrepancy was
investigated really, at this interview on 13 April. Do
you see that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. There is a reference in the first couple of lines to the
audit and the loss, and it says:
"Also at the time of the audit an undated personal
cheque for £2,500 was found in stock unit AA --"
A. Sorry, where is that?
Q. It is at the top. The top few lines. "Introduction":
"... and the mutilated notes were overstated by the
same amount."
Pausing there --
A. So these are from the interview notes from the
Post Office?
Q. Indeed.
A. Okay.
Q. It says that you have accepted transaction corrections
and, in doing so, indicated that you had made this
amount good when in fact you did not.
A. Yes, I --
Q. Can I finish --
A. -- in the beginning --
Q. "This is misuse of Post Office funds and false
accounting."
So that was what was being alleged against you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on a second. This is what we are
going to do. We are going to have a break now.
Mr Abdulla, you deal with your interview, et cetera in
your witness statement. I see there is a hard copy in
front of you.
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We are going to break for an hour. Come
back in at about 1.45 pm or 1.50 pm and just refresh
your memory of what you say in your witness statement
about this.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Then Mr Cavender is going to re-put that
last question to you after you have had a chance to look
at your witness statement, but also read what is on that
screen. So the Opus screen will stay open.
A. I am aware of this. It is not a problem for me.
MR GREEN: My Lord, could I just raise one issue, which is
I think my learned friend may have to consider whether
the counterclaim proceedings which are pleaded generally
are proceedings for the recovery of property as against
this individual claimant. Because it has a bearing on
whether any warning has to be given before certain types
of question are put. Which may be why your Lordship ...
MR JUSTICE FRASER: One of the things I am going to do over
the short adjournment is remind myself of the last two
minutes of the transcript.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, if you are going to do that, if you
read the notes, in particular these notes up to -- it's
really page --
A. Sorry, are you talking to me?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, Mr Abdulla.
MR CAVENDER: Up to page 5 or 6, my Lord, you will see what
was said at this interview and you will see the line of
questioning.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So I need to look at {E4/82/1} to
{E4/82/6} did you say?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, yes.
MR GREEN: Would your Lordship be assisted by having a copy
of the relevant provision of the Civil Evidence Act?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, I would.
Mr Abdulla, so that is what is going to happen. So
you are going to lose ten or fifteen minutes of the one
hour break but I think that is probably worth it.
A. No problem.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Don't talk about the case, please.
This is a question for Opus: I am assuming I can get
on the non-courtroom specific server using my log in
details in my room without logging out here? Through
the web? Alright. Mr Cavender, anything else?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Anything else?
MR GREEN: No, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. 2 o'clock.
(1.05 pm)
(The short adjournment)
(2.00 pm)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The only thing I was unable to do was
just revisit the transcript for about a page, because
although on Opus there is a Day 4, it is basically just
a blank slot.
I'm not sure that that is necessary, it is just one
of the things I said I was going to do which I have been
unable to do.
Mr Cavender, before you resume there are two things
I need to deal with. The first is, how much detail are
you going to go into on this?
MR CAVENDER: Not a huge amount, I am just going to -- you
have read the first six pages of the interview, I am
going to take him through that and ask him for his
explanations in the same way.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR CAVENDER: And obviously it goes to having managed the
Post Office and of course to credibility and honesty,
I suppose.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. It seems to me I ought to
give the witness a warning, which he is entitled to
under the Civil Evidence Act. I am just going to
explain to him. At the end of that warning, if either
of you think there is any deficiency in the warning then
please tell me, particularly you, Mr Green, because
you're acting.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, before you do that, can I raise one
point. This witness has already put his credibility in
issue. If you go to the transcript which you can see
now, and go to page 32, line 14 --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, I have a note of that already, but
I will go back to it.
MR CAVENDER: As I understand, if someone puts their
credibility in issue and says they are honest in that
way, then the privilege against self-incrimination may
well not be available to them unless they want to
withdraw statements about their honesty.
Can I remind you what the witness said?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on one second. As far as the Act
is concerned, it is not contingent on their credibility
not being in issue.
MR CAVENDER: No, quite. But in terms of whether he is
taken to have waived and put his own honesty in issue --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, whether he has put his honesty in
issue or not, that is obviously a point that will have
certain consequences. And if the privilege is invoked,
which it hasn't yet been, that might also have some
consequences. But in terms of the entitlement to the
warning --
MR CAVENDER: Absolutely right, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, it is both a duty and a right --
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: -- to have the warning.
MR CAVENDER: Quite. I was just making that point, there is
that wrinkle.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Subsequent wrinkles will have to be
dealt with afterwards, but it seems to me the important
thing now is to deal with the warning.
MR CAVENDER: I agree.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And Mr Green, on the basis that, apart
from all of the other claimants, you are acting for
Mr Abdulla.
MR GREEN: Indeed.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is also going to be very important,
Mr Cavender, if you do undertake the exercise which you
have said you're going to do, that you do it in
self-contained questions, rather than any slightly
longer rolled-up questions.
MR CAVENDER: Quite.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, all of that may or may not
make sense to you but I am just going to explain the
background to the situation.
There is an Act called the Civil Evidence Act 1968
which says that any witness or any person who is in
legal proceedings that are not criminal proceedings is
entitled to refuse to answer a question if they think
that to do so would tend to expose them to proceedings
for a criminal offence or recovery of a penalty.
You have re-read your witness statement in respect
of your interview with the Post Office, and you have
I think also looked at least at the first page of the
interview notes, and you know what the interview that
the Post Office had with you concerned?
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And you know, because Mr Cavender read
it out to you just before lunch before I stopped
everything, that part of the subject of the interview
was misuse of Post Office funds and false accounting.
Because of the nature of those potential offences,
I am going to give you a warning. Well, I'm not going
to give you a warning, I am going to remind you of the
ability, when Mr Cavender asks any of these questions,
you can refuse to answer them if you want to.
A. Okay, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Does all of that make sense? Have I put
that in sensible language and you are happy you have
understood?
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, that seems to me to be
adequate.
Right, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Mr Abdulla, do you remember having this
interview, which should be at {E4/28/1}. I think you
were accompanied by Mr Darvill from the NFSP, is that
right?
A. That is correct.
Q. You were asked questions about the consequences flowing
from the audit on 6 April 2009, is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. What you were asked about by Ms Ridge, if we go to
{E4/82/3}, on behalf of Post Office, you were asked
about the unusable notes line:
"... AA stock on the date of audit ..."
Yes? We see that at paragraph 31. Do you see that?
A. Yes. My Lord, this time I was really vulnerable.
I was -- I was in shock at the whole system. I accepted
things on this interview that, looking back, I shouldn't
have, and I should have had some legal advice. All
I wanted to do was pay the money that I owed, allegedly
owed, and then be reinstated, which was the
understanding from the previous audit that had taken
place in my branch.
So I was accepting everything, just -- just in
the end thinking I would pay the money and then I would
be reinstated. So I was really vulnerable and it was --
I was just really at a low point at that time. I was,
you know -- just to make that clear.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: By way of background, I should perhaps
therefore go to {E4/82/1}, the first page, it's
a summary, to remind you at the time of the audit they
found an undated personal cheque from you in the sum of
£2,500, do you accept that?
A. I do accept that. But I do not believe there is any
wrongdoing in this. The reason being this was advised
to me by one of my staff who is very experienced, and
they said this was a common practice with the previous
subpostmaster. So what would happen is rather than, as
we discussed before, where you have transaction
corrections come in and then the ones to correct those
transaction corrections, so you're putting money in,
money out all the time. But initially I used to put the
money in straightaway at the branch trading period. In
the last six months that is when things changed
and I started adopting this -- adopting this situation
here, where I would put a cheque in to cover the loss in
the whole of the office, if you like.
So this personal cheque, yes, I remember this, and
the amount of £2,500 was because I had done a balance
for the office before going on holiday -- or a couple of
days before holiday, or I think it was the last trading
period. So that cheque was not in for a long time. But
there were previous cheques where I would put them and
then rip them up, and so on. But this was the latest
loss. And I believe that I was doing the right thing
because it was an adopted practice in the branch before.
I don't believe I did any wrongdoing. The cheque could
have been easily cashed, I had enough funds in my bank
account to have that cheque cashed. I had signed it.
The only thing, it was -- I think it was undated, that
must have been an error on my part, but the cheques were
normally dated and signed in the name Post Office
Limited, so the Post Office could ...
In any incident, often audit, as happened, what
I assumed is that cheque would cover and they would --
that would cover the losses and they could just cash
that cheque and everything would be fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: If that was true, just take that at face
value, and you have been doing this for six months, why
were none of the cheques, say, for the previous six
months entered into Horizon, entered into the system?
A. Because there was no need.
Q. But there was a need, it was Post Office's money, you
had been overstating the mutilated cash by the same
amount as the cheque, am I right?
A. No, the mutilated -- I don't know why they are the same
figure, or maybe they are a figure similar to that, but
the mutilated notes had nothing to do with that cheque.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think you have been asked about
the mutilated notes yet but I might be wrong.
MR CAVENDER: You haven't but you will be now.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Put the previous question because
I would be interested in the answer.
MR CAVENDER: Which previous question, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The one where you said:
"... it was Post Office's money, you had been
overstating the mutilated cash ..."
That question.
MR CAVENDER: Yes. You had been overstating whichever,
because we don't have all the records, certainly at the
date of the audit you had overstated the mutilated cash
by £2,500 --
A. Mutilated cash means mutilated notes, okay?
Q. Exactly.
A. Yes, as I was saying, the mutilated notes had nothing to
do with the cash, they were a separate entity which
needed to be sent back to head office, but they were
part of the total loss.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By "mutilated notes", are they bank
notes that have been torn and --
A. That is correct, my Lord, yes.
MR CAVENDER: Pause there. Are you saying then at the time
of the audit on 6 April 2009 you had in your branch
£2,500 worth of mutilated notes?
A. No, I am not saying that.
Q. Then what are you saying in relation to the mutilated
notes?
A. I am saying the mutilated notes were part of the overall
amount of the cheque. So I believe -- I don't know how
the mutilated notes were so high because it says they
were overstated by the same amount. I don't agree with
that because ...
Q. The mutilated notes were overstated by £2,500, yes? The
audit tells us that. And we know your cheque was for
the same amount. Do you disagree with either of those
statements?
A. Okay, I can see a reason for this. The mutilated notes
could have been as an office as a whole. So there might
have been more coming in afterwards, after I had done
the balance at the trading period, I don't know. That
is one reason why it could be that high.
Q. Go to bundle {E4/82/3}, the next page in these notes,
and see what you said during the interview.
You were asked at paragraph 31:
"Right so in AA stock on the date of audit right
there was an amount on the unusable notes line, what can
you tell me about that?"
You reply:
"Yeah basically I covered, I was covering losses
there, it wasn't transaction corrections altogether it
was just basic losses on foreign currency and so on."
A. Yes, so -- that is exactly right. So it wasn't covering
the losses all together, so it wasn't the transaction
corrections all together. So it was transaction
corrections and basic losses on foreign currency, which
is not mutilated notes, so foreign currency is different
to mutilated notes. So again there was a loss on
foreign currency which I was covering by that cheque, as
well as mutilated notes, as well as the transaction
corrections that had come in for that trading period.
Q. What it's saying here I suggest to you is very clear,
and what happened was you were increasing your cash,
your mutilated notes, to make the system balance, and
then what you did is put a cheque, undated cheque in
the till in case someone came along, like Post Office,
and queried it. That is what you were doing.
A. No, I don't agree with that.
Q. And you knew you were doing it.
A. No. As is stated clearly here, the mutilated notes were
part of the total loss of the office, and in the last
branch trading period the loss was around £2,500 which
I covered with that cheque. So that covered all losses
including mutilated notes, foreign currency, any
transaction corrections that were at that time present,
a lot of losses from the lottery as well. So everything
was covered in that amount.
Q. We see at paragraph 34 -- or just to cover off on that
and carry on, you were overstating the mutilated notes
to disguise the shortfall?
A. No.
Q. You had been doing this for some months. If we go to
paragraph 34 on page {E4/82/3}, your answer when asked
when are these losses from:
"Just last few months, 2 or 3 months ..."
Pausing there, you said to my Lord a moment ago that
in fact it was for six months, is that right?
A. These -- the losses would be on a monthly basis, so
a maximum adopted there is a maximum six months
before -- of putting the cheque in was six months before
my -- sorry, my suspension.
Q. Pause there for me. So you put a new cheque in on
rollover every month to cover losses?
A. Correct.
Q. But on no occasion did you put that cheque through the
Horizon system and date it, did you?
A. It was dated, but I was waiting for transaction
corrections to come in to ... What would happen is once
you roll over, there would still be transaction
corrections coming in after trading period to counteract
the corrections that were made before. So it wasn't
worth me keep doing, you know, putting the cash in,
sometimes it would be for thousands and I would have to
go to the bank and take out thousands and so on. So it
would be easier, and I believe it is a common practice,
to just write a cheque out in cash and put that into the
till to cover any losses. This was all due --
Q. Pause there --
A. This was all due to a reliable, experienced staff member
suggesting that, because he saw me taking money out and
putting money in all the time, and it -- it is just --
you do that for one and a half years, that is fine, and
then you just -- because the losses were not actual
losses, they were just transaction corrections and they
were going to be corrected, which I hoped anyway they
would be corrected. So, you know, again it is a flawed
system where you just need to keep taking money out and
then putting money in again.
So this was suggested to me and I adopted it in good
faith, thinking that I was doing the right thing, and
I believe -- I still believe I did the right thing.
I had no malicious intent, I had no intent -- why would
I jeopardise my whole livelihood for £3,000, £4,000? It
doesn't make sense.
Q. Please go to --
A. £120,000 salary, remuneration, and I would jeopardise
that for ...
Q. Could you go to page 4 {E4/82/4} at the bottom, please.
In response to your long response at paragraph 50, you
are then asked by Post Office:
"When did you first put the cheque in the stock unit
then."
You said at 52:
"I had a cheque in before but then this was the
final cheque.
Question:
"So when you came to do a branch trading, how have
you been accounting for that cheque?"
And your representative said:
"Well he accounted for his mutilated notes didn't
he?"
And you said:
"Yeah mutilated notes."
Question:
"So you inflated your cash?
And you said:
"Yeah there was no other way where I could put it
in."
A. Again I was just really vulnerable but I can answer this
as well. This was things I was agreeing to when
I shouldn't have agreed to. But what -- the thing was,
when I was transferring the branch to the person who was
taking over, Ms Daljit Matharu, she was taking over the
branch, so I had to do another balance, another stock
balance where I had to count the cash before, on the
Saturday afternoon when she was taking over on the
Monday. So after the trading balance there was a cheque
in there, that is where it says the first cheque. So
that would have been the first cheque. And the second
cheque would have been after doing a balance with
Ms Daljit Matharu who was taking over the office when
I was going on holiday. So that is why it says you put
the first cheque in and then, you know, I put the -- I
had the cheque before which was -- the cheque before was
for a different amount which ...
Q. Pausing there. I think you accepted before you had put
a cheque in for the previous six months of different
amounts, is that right?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. And it was for --
A. Every month would be --
Q. Can I ask the question, please. And it was for
an increasing amount, is that right? Did the cheques
get bigger over time?
A. Not necessarily. There would be some transaction would
come to correct the transaction that had gone before.
So it wasn't -- it wasn't always increasing. Sometimes
it was increasing, sometimes it was decreasing.
Q. And am I right in thinking that when you put the cheque
into the till without dating it, it was never your
intention to cash that cheque and put it through
Horizon?
A. I do not believe that is accurate. Because if I found
out that the loss was a genuine loss and I had made
a mistake, especially there was a lot of problems with
the lottery where there was many duplicate transaction
corrections of the same amount, and even when they
debited -- they were supposed to credit me with a
transaction correction, it came up as a debit, so I was
losing double. So instead of losing £1,092 I was losing
£2,000 and so on. And some were compensated some were
not. So I was still waiting to be compensated and I was
ringing the Helpline regularly about the lottery.
I phoned Camelot as well. But the cheques were
different amounts and they could have been up or down.
Q. Am I right in thinking you didn't therefore cash any of
the five or six cheques? None of them were entered into
Horizon, were they?
A. No, because every time I had a -- at the next
rollover -- there were certain -- as I said, the
transaction corrections would come back and then they
would nullify the cheque. So what was the point of
putting the cheque in? So the cheque would have been --
if I had put the cheque in, or if it would have been
a certain amount, then that -- it wouldn't have added
up, if you see what I mean.
Q. Then if we go to the top of page {E4/82/5}, carrying on
from the passage I read before, where you say:
"Yeah there was no other way where I could put it
in."
You were asked then by Post Office:
"Well there was you could have put the cheque
through and processed it."
And you say:
"Yeah exactly yeah that's my mistake."
What she then puts to you is:
"So what you've done you've inflated your cash, you
falsified your account 'cos you inflated your cash."
And you say:
"Yeah."
A. Again I was agreeing to get reinstated and just
accepting that -- what I was getting the feeling is that
if you pay the money back you would be reinstated, as my
experience in the previous audit where I paid the money
straightaway, but because I was on holiday I didn't have
the chance to pay the money straightaway when the
auditors came. So my experience was when the auditors
come you have a loss, you pay the money straightaway,
and then, you know, nothing happens. So that was the
last audit I had and that was my experience. But
because I wasn't in the country I thought this was my
chance to pay the money back and then I would be
reinstated.
Q. To be fair to you, I said that paragraph 61 was spoken
by you. In fact it was your adviser who said:
"Yeah but the trouble is ..."
That was in fact your adviser, not you, that said
that.
A. Yes, exactly. This -- Mike Darvill, he's from the
Federation, even he says it is common practice to do
that, that a lot of postmasters used to do this, because
you can't go to the bank on trading -- sometimes I used
to stay until 11 o'clock at night, you can't go to the
bank then and get a couple of thousands pounds out and
then put it into the -- so it is easier just to put the
cheque in and that is covering the loss. You are doing
your bit to cover that loss.
So when you are rolling over, you are signing the
documents, you are saying that the losses are covered,
everything is fine and you are balanced. So that is
what I understood to be balanced.
Q. But, Mr Abdulla, there would have been a shortfall if
you had not inflated the cash, wouldn't there? You
hadn't inflated the cash, unusable notes, on this
particular occasion, because you didn't enter the
cheque. So you have to inflate the cash otherwise there
would be a shortfall. Do you agree with that?
A. No, the only time that would happen was on a trading
balance.
Q. Which happened every month.
A. Yes, but I had the cheque in there to cover it.
Q. No, what I am saying is the cheque wasn't to cover it,
was it, because the cheque wasn't entered into Horizon,
so on the balancing day there would be a shortfall if
you hadn't inflated cash? Because although you say the
cheque is in the till, it is not entered in Horizon, you
are not cashing that, so there would have been
a shortfall, wouldn't there?
A. The reason I was doing that was again because I thought
it was --
Q. Firstly, do you accept that is what you were --
A. -- the right thing to do.
Q. Do you accept that is what you were doing?
A. Can you just -- it's a bit confusing. Could you say
that again?
Q. On balancing day there would have been a shortfall if
you hadn't inflated the cash. Why? Because you hadn't
entered the cheque into the system, you had merely put
it in the till in an undated form.
A. But the office overall had balanced because the cheque
was there to cover any losses in the system.
Q. But that was Post Office's money --
A. So that cheque was in as cash. So when you do
the rollover, that cheque -- actually, sorry, was it
cash or ... a cheque in the system, to roll over the
system to the next trading period.
Q. Going on in the interview in terms of the same point
again, at the bottom of page {E4/82/5}, last couple of
lines:
"You've had, and from what you're saying that these
losses have built up over 2 or 3 months, you've had 2 or
3 months to make it good you know."
And you say:
"Yeah I have made a mistake."
You are then asked by Post Office:
"So you've been inflating your cash which is
falsifying your account 'cos when you, do you sign the
branch trading statement when you print it off?"
You say:
"Yeah."
Question:
"Right you're signing an official document to say
that's a true account of what cash and stock is there
and it's not."
A. Yes, I believe it was a true account of what I was
doing, it was right, there was no wrongdoing, and
I believe I was doing the right thing.
Q. Can I carry on with the question?
A. Because by covering the loss in the system with a cheque
which could be cashed any time by the Post Office or by
myself, I could have put it through the system, but it
was there to cover the losses, and I believe I was doing
the right thing, it was an adopted thing by many people,
many subpostmasters, and it was recommended to me by
an experienced staff member who had been there for many,
many years and who said that this was adopted by the
previous subpostmaster.
Q. I don't accept any of that, Mr Abdulla.
Look at paragraph 76 on the same page {E4/82/6}, the
answer to that given by Ms Ridge:
"Yeah but that's misuse of Post Office funds you're
not putting the funds back in."
Because you are not actually putting the cheque into
Horizon --
A. No, I believe I was putting the funds in --
Q. Sorry?
A. I believe there was the cheque to cover the funds.
Again, there was no losses. These were no losses
because they were mistakes by Horizon in the system
where I would get duplicate transaction corrections for
the same amount time and time again, because there was
someone on the other side of Horizon making mistakes, or
the actual Horizon system making mistakes where I was
having double losses. And even when a credit would come
to me, that would come as a minus and it would inflate
the losses. So wasn't a loss to the Post Office,
because the Post Office had their money, it was a loss
to myself.
Q. Mr Abdulla, this £2,500, yes? This is funds belonging
to the Post Office, am I right?
A. Sorry?
Q. They are funds belonging to the Post Office?
A. Which funds, sorry?
Q. The £2,500 covered by your undated cheque.
A. No, I believe this was to cover any losses that were not
genuine losses but they were just losses showing up on
the system. The Post Office had their money, they were
not losing any money at this time.
Q. So it was Post Office's money, and by putting an
undated --
A. Did I say that?
Q. I am putting to you that that is the case, and that by
putting an undated --
A. No. No. You're confusing --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on, Mr Abdulla, hold on.
Mr Cavender has to put Post Office's case to you, and
I accept that you don't agree that it was Post Office's
money, but what Mr Cavender is now doing is he's putting
the subsequent points to that. So I have got your
evidence on whose money it is.
Mr Cavender, would you like to continue?
MR CAVENDER: So I say the premise is it's Post Office's
money. By keeping the undated cheque in the till, that
money remains in your bank account, doesn't it?
A. Yes, because it was not -- it was not the Post Office's
loss, it was my loss. I was covering the losses on the
system. But again there were no genuine losses made to
Post Office. There was a lot of mistakes being made,
and the reason I adopted this was when I came to find
out about these losses, otherwise I would have -- and
the last one and a half years before this I was putting
in money from my own funds and covering the losses
and I estimate about £10 to £12,000 of my own money went
into the Post Office.
Q. You certified every month, is this right, that the
content of this balancing and trading statement was
an accurate reflection of the cash and stock at this
branch, yes? You did that yourself and signed that
yourself every month, am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did that in circumstances, I suggest to you,
when you knew it was not true?
A. I believe it was the right thing to do. I did not --
when I accepted false accounting, that was the biggest
mistake, because again if I had some legal advice --
then I didn't understand at the time how serious
an implication of false accounting is, I just assumed
that I just made an error, and as soon as I paid the
money back I would be reinstated.
So I don't know why they said I can't bring anyone
from a legal -- a solicitor or anything, but now
I understand why. Because I feel that I was trapped,
and because of my vulnerable situation I was taken
advantage of.
Q. Mr Abdulla, you could have simply paid the cheque in.
That is what you could have done at any stage.
A. There was no reason to. There was no loss in the actual
system. There was just a transaction correction which
was waiting to be reversed.
Q. You knew the longer that you ran this secret deficit in
this way, the more difficult it was for anyone to
discover what the original cause of it was?
A. I knew what the original cause was, it was mistakes from
the Post Office in the lottery. The reason the previous
subpostmaster didn't have the lottery in -- the lottery,
and that was my condition, to put it into the Horizon
system where it was previously on the retail side, and
subsequently my -- the person who took over from me had
many problems with the lottery through Horizon.
I don't know why they would put it through -- why they
wouldn't put it through Horizon unless there was some
problems because I would get more, anyone would get more
commission going through the Horizon system. You would
get a few pence every ticket, every line of ticket more.
So it doesn't make sense not to go through Horizon.
But there must be something wrong where you had these
errors come up time and time again and you would have
double losses, double -- someone was processing
transaction corrections which were duplicates --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have got that point. So you say you
would be debited twice.
A. Debited twice. And then when I was credited, that was
coming up as another debit, so it would be triple.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have that evidence.
MR CAVENDER: Mr Abdulla, the problem with all this is
whatever the original cause for any of this deficit, and
I don't accept for a moment what you are saying, it is
quite a distinct thing, is your duty to account
honestly, isn't it, when making your declaration --
A. No --
Q. -- and to do so honestly?
A. That is inaccurate. I -- at the time and even now
I believe that I was honest in my dealings. I had no
undoing -- sorry, I had no malicious -- no, you know --
criminal mind or whatever you call it, I had nothing
that was -- I believe I was doing the right thing, and
it was my office, I treated it like my own. I wanted to
make money, I wanted to be successful, I wanted to
increase the sales, I wanted to increase the retail
side, I wanted to buy another Post Office, and so on and
so on. And I was happy at the time, and I used to do
this because I thought there was nothing I am doing
wrong. When the auditors came and they found I was
doing wrong, that is the first time it occurred to me
that they are saying it is wrong. But I still -- I say
that I did nothing wrong.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: You knew your declarations were untrue.
A. No.
Q. And you knew you were misleading Post Office?
A. No, I don't agree.
Q. And you did so deliberately?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
Now, in terms of the underlying errors,
I don't think you say very much about the underlying
losses. What investigations did you do into what caused
the original losses of the various types found on the
audit?
A. There was very limited I could do. I would just have to
wait for transaction corrections to be reversed. There
was the Helpline that I mentioned before was
absolutely -- not very helpful. It just seemed like
they were going through a flow diagram or step-by-step
guide. And then all the answers would point to go
through your paperwork or just wait for a transaction
correction to come through.
Q. So if we look at {E4/67/1}, the audit paper with the
various deficits there, these were all a complete shock
to you, you didn't know that any of these existed, is
that what you are saying?
A. Sorry, where is that?
Q. {E4/67/1} At audit these are all the differences in the
various areas.
A. This was the audit time, yes?
Q. Yes, but you're saying --
A. This doesn't show any transaction corrections.
Q. No, but you are saying all this is a complete surprise
to you. You thought everything had been done in
a proper way and therefore --
A. The amount is surprising because when I left it wasn't
that much. And there was another error because this
amount went down to £3,900 and something, because what
had happened was when the auditor had accepted another
duplicate transaction correction, so inflating my total
loss for the office, which was later reversed, and then
it was reduced to £3,900. So what had happened was
I had suffered a double loss, because they shouldn't
have accepted that, and the first one was an error. So
I only got compensated for one of those, and the other
one, which was another £900-odd, should have been
deducted from the £3,900, so it should have been about
£3,000. Which is similar to the £2,500 cheque. £500
could have come in afterwards when I -- after I had done
the balance or, you know, it could have come from
somewhere else. So it is only a £500 discrepancy to the
cheque that I put in.
Q. So again focusing on the underlying causes for these
losses, I think you employed up to five assistants, did
you, over a period?
A. Yes, there was two part-time and there was a few
full-time, yes.
Q. You weren't always able to supervise them? You weren't
always there, I imagine?
A. No. I was there I would say about 95 per cent of the
time.
Q. And in terms of trying to work out where your losses
over the last six months have come from that you had
been rolling, did you interview the staff or consider
the possibility of wrongdoing or mistakes by them?
A. No, I had complete faith in them. They were very
honest. They had been there for a long time. The
previous subpostmaster, he recommended them.
I noticed things like if someone -- if a customer
would come in and they would give too much money to
them, they would always stop them and say "You have
given me too much", or if there was too much in an
envelope they would always give the money back to the
customer. One time I even tested -- when I was starting
I tested by remming out a small amount of money to one
of the other counters, and then they would say "Don't
forget to put it in the system" -- sorry, I would give
the money but not put it through the rem, and they'd say
"Don't forget to put it in the system because we are
going to be short at the end of the day".
So I did test them, I didn't need to, but just
little things like that, and I had no issues with them,
no -- I didn't have no things that I would not trust
them. I 100 per cent trust them.
Q. You were running a commercial business alongside the
Post Office in these premises.
A. No, I was not.
Q. Not at all?
A. No, that was sublet to someone else. I was getting rent
for that. I was 100 per cent committed to the
Post Office and I was there, as I said, 95 to
98 per cent of time.
Q. I formally put to you that any deficits you did suffer,
the likely cause is error by wrongdoing -- error or
wrongdoing in the branch by you or your staff?
A. No, I 100 per cent disagree with that, and I
100 per cent say that the errors were due to someone on
the other side of Horizon, or Horizon itself, making
errors itself and giving me double, triple transaction
corrections for the same amounts for the same things.
And also when I did have an apology transaction
correction it would still be a minus figure, so that
would add -- so someone was not doing their job properly
or it was the system, I don't know what it was, but it
is riddled with errors from start to finish. In the
beginning there was wrong dates in letters. In the end
they were actually -- my suspension was actually decided
before the actual audit. The termination was decided
before the actual appeal. It was all signed and dated
before the actual event happened.
So I believe that this was all planned. It is
a conspiracy to -- because I was on a lucrative contract
and they were trying to get me off the core payment,
which they have got contracts now about reducing the
payments on core -- only sales tier payments are on the
contracts. They were closing down small village
offices. Also this was all a national cost-cutting
measure. The only way they could do that is give these
0 per cent of three months' notice and zero notice
things. So they can come in any time, do an audit, have
this reason for their suspension, a silly reason, they
could make up anything. And also the other way was buy
them out, give them two and a half times salary, buy
them out. They couldn't do that to me because that
would have been nearly £300,000, so this was another
alternative, a cheaper alternative for them, and that is
what I believe, my Lord.
Q. Go to paragraph 119 of your witness statement, please,
{C1/4/24}. In the final sentence you say:
"I was given the impression during the interview
that if I paid this I would likely be reinstated, and
that is the reason I paid the amount to Post Office by
cheque the same day."
Do you see that?
A. Yes. I would never have paid that amount if --
Q. Can I ask a question? Mr Abdulla --
A. -- I didn't think I'd be reinstated the same day.
I would have left that amount. Because I know that
wasn't a genuine loss, and then I would have waited for
that loss to come up to my office.
Q. Can you tell me, please --
A. Because that loss must have come up.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on --
A. Someone must have made that money up, and not me. It
wasn't me.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, I really have been very
patient. You are now just going to have to listen to
Mr Cavender's questions. I have read your witness
statement and I understand your explanation for what has
happened but you have to just listen to his question and
answer his question, please.
A. Sorry, my Lord.
MR CAVENDER: So paragraph 119 of your statement, the last
sentence, page {C1/4/24}, you say this:
"I was given the impression during the interview
that if I paid this I would likely be reinstated, and
that is the reason I paid the amount to Post Office by
cheque the same day."
What do you say gave you the impression you refer to
there? What was said or done by someone to give you
that impression?
A. It is just the previous experience. When I paid off the
audit previously, which was for a bit, it was less ...
MR JUSTICE FRASER: £300-odd.
A. Yes. So my understanding of the process was the same,
but because I was not in the country I couldn't do it at
the same time. I couldn't pay the money I was losing at
the same time. So I thought this was my chance to pay
the money off and I'd be reinstated.
And not only that, Mike Darvill, he also made that
assumption. He also gave me that feeling that if I paid
the money off then they would reinstate me. And also
when I was at interview as well, I got that feeling as
well, that they just wanted the money paid off and then
everything was fine. But little did I know that they
wanted the money paid off and then they would say
bye-bye. Because if they would have said or insinuated
that you are not ever going to be reinstated, then
no one would pay that money back, would they? Because
it is not a genuine loss. It is a loss to me when
I paid that, but it is not a genuine loss to the
Post Office. It just shows up on the system.
MR CAVENDER: Can we look at what the interview said at
{E4/28/28} through to {E4/28/29}. This is right at the
end of the interview, the last things that were said.
In the middle of the page at 37, ER, Ms Ridge, says:
"I don't know if there is. Went on to say she has 2
choices:- one would be that I could reinstate you. If
I do ... It would also be on a final written warning on
the understanding ..."
A. Exactly.
Q. Then you say:
"Yeah I will definitely do that now yeah
definitely."
Then she says:
"Well because what you've done is falsifying
accounts, that's if I reinstate you. My other option is
I could consider terminating your contract. I haven't
made the decision yet at all. I need to go away ..."
A. Yes, but it's the way they say it. You get an idea of
what they mean. When she was saying this, she was
saying this in a way that I would -- I am going to
reinstate you, I haven't made 100 per cent decision but
it is likely that I will. If you pay the money then
I will. Also she was going to -- I don't want to say --
it is not a related topic --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If it is not related to the question
we'll move on.
A. She was supposed to investigate Camelot's --
MR CAVENDER: Then if you go on, at the bottom of 28 your
representative MD admits you have done "silly things"
et cetera, but basically in mitigation. Then
Elaine Ridge says at the top of page 29 {E4/82/29}:
"I would appreciate if you could send me a cheque
for the outstanding debt as it stands at the moment,
that doesn't take into account any errors that might
come. Up until yesterday morning it was £3926."
A. Yes, even the way you are reading it, that is the way
she was saying it. She was saying it as if I would be
reinstated. So I paid the cheque straight away,
I didn't even pay it the next day or whatever, I paid it
straightaway. So that is my understanding of what would
have happened.
Q. I suggest to you she didn't give you an impression and
it is just wishful thinking on your behalf?
A. No. What it was, she just wanted me to pay the money
off, so that is why it was all nicey nicey. It wasn't
because she was going to reinstate me although I got
that impression, it was just getting the money and
getting me out of there and never considering
reinstating me, just suspending and then terminate.
That's it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
Mr Cavender, any more?
MR CAVENDER: I have noticed in all the notes of the
interview et cetera there is no mention anywhere of you
saying you didn't have a copy of your contract. Surely
if you were wanting to curry favour and effectively say,
well, you behaved badly, Post Office. I didn't even get
a copy of my contract. Isn't that something you might
say --
A. No, because up until the audit, up until all this
happened, everything was perfect. On a day-to-day basis
you don't need your contract, that is why I just forgot
about it. I mentioned it once to -- when I -- but then
you don't need it so it just goes out of your mind. You
are on a day-to-day basis, you are just on Horizon and
so on and so on, you don't refer to it any time. So you
are not -- it is not in your mind. The only time you
would need it is things like this at the end but before
that everything was fine.
Q. Moving on to training. You deal with this at
paragraph 82 and following in your witness statement.
I will deal with this quite quickly.
Essentially you say you thought the training on
Horizon wasn't sufficient for you, is that a fair
summary?
A. Sorry, where have I said that?
Q. Paragraph 82. {C1/4/15}
A. No, you are taking it out of context.
Q. You tell me what you think about the Horizon training.
A. The training was in two sections, so there was the
classroom training which was about two weeks, and I have
said in my witness statement that was very thorough and
very useful especially for someone who had never seen
the Horizon system, and that was very helpful and it was
a good training session and a good training period.
Q. You had ten days of classroom training?
A. Yes, two weeks, Monday to Friday.
Q. And you had training on Horizon?
A. Yes, we had a dummy system. That is what it should be
called. We had a dummy system where we would replicate
making transactions, buying stamps, what to press on the
system, on the screen. Just up-selling, asking
questions. If they come in for a stamp, would you like
it there next day?
Q. You're taught how to balance on the Horizon system?
A. We had our own tills. It wasn't a balance for -- like
as in real life, when I had a five counter office and a
back office to deal with, it was just the till. So we'd
count the stamps in the till, count the cash in
the till, count whatever else is in the till, and then
tally it up with Horizon. So it wasn't relevant to
doing a balance in a whole five counter office.
MR CAVENDER: I don't know how much ... there are lots of
guides I could put to this witness.
There are lots of guides and other things that were
given to you and used during this course dealing with
Horizon and balancing, weren't there?
A. It was mostly about sales. There was -- because
balancing, it would have -- unless you are -- when you
had the live training, when the trainers came to the
office, that is when we had the proper training on
balancing and stocktaking and so on. But as a dummy
system you only have one till, you have some cash and
some stamps and so on, a limited amount, which if you go
through that training it seems pretty easy to do
a balance, but it is -- it doesn't replicate real life.
Q. In terms of the Horizon user guide, is that something
you were given after your training to go away with?
A. No, I don't know what a Horizon -- I had a balancing
guide, but I don't know what a Horizon user guide is.
Q. What was the balancing guide?
A. As I said before, it was a laminated A4 paper, two
sides, and that is what I used to use for balancing.
Q. If we go to {F4/3/1}, see if you recognise that.
A. No, I don't.
Q. That is a Horizon user guide.
A. No, I never had this.
Q. Go to {F3/58/1}. This was one of your classroom
sessions.
A. Yes, this was just put up on the screen, but they can't
talk through how to do a balance. You have to actually
do it, it's a practical thing. So this was just on the
screen at the time.
Q. But didn't you have a dummy terminal, like you say, to
work through?
A. Yes, just the till, not a back office or an office or --
we all had our own tills, it wasn't me on my own.
Q. By till, do you mean a touch screen, the Horizon touch
screen?
A. With a terminal as you have in a Post Office, you have
a till with a touch screen terminal and so on.
Q. Exactly. And no back office, obviously, because this is
a training session.
A. That is what I am saying.
Q. {F3/59/1} please. This is another session,
"Introduction to Horizon and Helpline". Does that sound
familiar?
A. Yes, it is just -- again that was on the screen, and
then you have a practical exercise as it says there.
Q. For an hour and a half?
A. You swipe a magnetic card and so on. So that was just
part of the introduction. So that is how you register
your details on the system, so you swipe the card.
Q. {F3/60/1}, stock balancing, one hour and 45 minutes, and
then --
A. Yes, that sounds about right. When you are doing your
first balance on the till, although it seems minimal,
but when you are first coming into it, it is pretty
much -- because it's the first time you are doing such
a thing. I don't think it would have taken an hour and
45 minutes, I think that would have been the maximum.
Q. That's on day 3. Then look across at days 5, 8 and 10,
another hour and a half.
A. Are they classroom training?
Q. This is classroom training, yes.
A. That is why I said in the beginning it was very thorough
and very useful and I was very competent about how to do
my own stock balancing at a till, which was easy, which
was fine. I could do my cash, do my stock on the till,
everything. The main problem is doing the whole office,
that is when the problem -- there is not enough support,
not enough help, doing the back -- it is fine, I was
fine doing it, it is just when there is a problem there
is not enough support. Helpline is not useful. What
should have happened, they should have had someone
coming in, if you have any problems have someone come in
and just run you through what you are doing wrong,
rather than just an audit and then bam, suspension.
Bam, termination. Just a bit of support would be great.
Q. {F3/54/1} please. So you are taught here how to use
operations manuals, yes? Their importance and how to
use them, do you remember that?
A. Yes, there was examples of these manuals, just a few
manuals that they had examples of --
Q. These are the ones we saw you signing for in
the ARS 110, aren't they?
A. I don't remember that. What is that number?
Q. That is the document that lists all the documents they
handed over to you. It was those kinds of manuals and
documents --
A. The one in the folder?
Q. On handover.
A. The big folder. Yes, that is fine. Yes.
Q. Then balancing procedures. If we go to {F3/70/1},
please. Do you recognise that document? It's a guide
to assist.
A. No, this doesn't ring a bell actually.
Q. Then {F3/77/1}. This seems to be similar to the Fablon
thing you are talking about. It is an overview
document, isn't it?
A. Yes, this is like a guide to where everything goes at
the end of the day. So I don't think this would have
been done in classroom training, unless I am mistaken.
It was more of a back office when it was live --
Q. It was more something you had been given, perhaps?
A. No, I wouldn't say that. Maybe it should have been in
my office. But again the one I had, the laminated one
I am talking about, it did have similar pictures.
Q. Finally {F3/78/1}. Again, this is a sort of what I call
really an idiot's guide?
A. No, this doesn't seem familiar.
Q. I'm not suggesting you needed it. But it's an overview
document to help you do the process, isn't it?
A. It is not familiar to me.
Q. Helpline then. Again you deal with this at paragraph 82
of your witness statement and following. {C1/4/15}
You say you called the Helpline six to seven times
per month, is that right?
A. Yes, that is -- yes, about average, six to seven. Some
months it was more, some months it was less depending on
the losses.
Q. I have the call log at {E4/72/1}, if that can be
expanded. That doesn't show, if we can read it,
anything like calls of that frequency?
A. I can't really see this.
Q. Is it possible you have got that wrong and you didn't
call that frequently? Because it certainly isn't shown
by this --
A. I can't see the document. It is very blurry. The
problem was with the Helpline, ringing was one thing and
then having someone answer it or someone being helpful
on the other side was another thing. So in the end if
you are getting no help and no answers you don't really
phone that much, so you kind of give up and go through
your figure-work, your papers again, and try and find
the mistakes yourself -- sorry, alleged mistakes,
I don't think they were mistakes but, as I said, it was
not from my side. But you try -- you go through your
paperwork but nothing turns up. So it's very
frustrating when you have gone through everything and
you're still not finding the answers, so -- and you
phone the Helpline and they are no use.
I spoke to my area manager but they are only limited
to giving out point-of-sale material, the latest sale
material, and they are only interested in making the
sales for the Post Office, increasing sales for the
area.
Q. I put it to you formally that the Helpline did give you
a reasonable level of help and assistance.
A. I don't know where you are getting that from but it is
not true from my side.
Q. The other thing to put to you was that Christine Adams
and Christine Stevens are two different humans.
A. No, that is not --
Q. One is not the married iteration of the other.
A. That is not possible. Christine Adams is the area
manager and she was there during the audit and she was
the one I was discussing before.
Q. The point I put to you, you said Christine Stevens, who
we saw sign the documents, is the same person as
Christine Adams --
A. That is correct --
Q. And what I am saying to you is that is incorrect.
A. Sorry?
Q. I am saying it is incorrect. They are two different
people. One is an auditor and one is an area manager.
A. So your Christine Stevens, was she at the audit time or
the area manager or at the interview?
Q. Christine Stevens was an auditor who signed the
paperwork on transfer day.
A. Okay, so there is a Christine Adams and a Christine
Stevens, is that right?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is what Mr Cavender is putting to
you.
A. I was under the impression it was the same person but
she had got married because the first name was the same.
So when -- the person who dealt with me -- the auditor
has nothing to do with me after the audit, they are just
concerned with the audit, so the person who was dealing
with me was my area manager and I believed her name was
Christine Adams or Christine Stevens and she got married
afterwards.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
MR CAVENDER: I have put to you that you have falsified your
declaration to Post Office and you have done so
deliberately. You have signed a Statement of Truth on
your witness statement: the contents of that statement
are true.
What I am going to say his Lordship at the end of
this trial is, as you are capable of falsifying your
declaration on your accounts, you are just the sort of
person who would falsify a declaration on a witness
statement so you shouldn't be believed.
A. That is not true.
Q. And I am going to say that. Would you like to give any
reason as to why I shouldn't make that connection?
A. Because that is baseless and senseless. Because
I believe I was doing the right thing, my Lord. I do
not believe I was falsifying any accounts. And in fact
I would do the same thing again if I went around because
that is the only advice I had at the time. Again there
was no support from the Post Office on what to do. The
only support I got was from colleagues and so on.
I believe I had -- was doing no wrongdoing whatsoever.
100 per cent I believe in myself. And I would not have
jeopardised my livelihood for a couple of thousand
pounds.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: No further questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
Mr Green?
MR GREEN: No re-examination.
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have a couple of questions. The first
is just terminology and I am just going to read
a transcript reference. At {Day4/93:14} of today's
transcript, Mr Cavender was asking you some questions
and he used the phrase "rollover period", and in your
answer you used the phrase "transfer rollover period".
I'm not really sure what that means. Did you mean the
same as accounting period?
A. Was that when I was going on holiday?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I tell you what, I'll take you to the
bit of the transcript. It's just so I can understand
what actually you meant. I will just remind you of the
transcript. It is easy for everybody to mix up phrases
so I just wanted to be clear about something.
You explained to -- I will call up the document.
You were being asked about a document at {C1/4/20} which
is part of your witness statement. There is
a paragraph, paragraph 102, where you had said:
"As far as I recall there was no process in Horizon
which required proof that I was the person accepting the
transaction correction (rather than an assistant ...)
which I do not think was right ..."
Do you see that?
A. Yes. So I --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just wait, Mr Abdulla. Hold your
horses. And Mr Cavender said to you -- he had already
asked you some questions about it. You said:
"If you are disputing it, it will still be under
dispute but you still have to sort it out at that time.
So that is when you get -- in the next trading period
you could get a transaction correction to correct that
correction. To nullify that. So it is still in
dispute. Or it may not be in dispute but a transaction
correction could come to reverse that correction on the
next trading period."
Okay?
A. Uh-huh.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Then later on in answer to another
question you used the expression "transfer rollover
period". You said:
"I just explained it to you. You have to accept it
whether you like it or not. Whether you -- it is still
in dispute if you have disputed it. Whether you agree
with it or not, you have to accept it. It is not that
you have a choice. On transfer rollover period you have
to accept it."
By "transfer rollover period", did you mean that or
did you mean something else?
A. No, I meant the same thing --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Transfer --
A. It's the period --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The accounting period?
A. Yes, the rollover period.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You just used the phrase again, rollover
period. Do you mean the end of one accounting period
and the beginning of the next?
A. Yes, that's right. Rollover means to the next trading
period.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. That is what I thought you
meant, but I just wanted to ask you the question to make
that clear.
A. Yes, there are many terms we use --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: "Rollover period" is a term which
I didn't think I had come across before.
I assume there are no questions arising out of that?
Thank you very much for coming, Mr Abdulla. You can
now leave the witness box.
(The witness withdrew)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just before we call the next witness it
might help if page {E4/54/1} is brought up, please. The
counters operations manuals, volume 1 to volume 5,
I would like a hard copy please of those volumes,
insofar as it is possible. It doesn't have to be today,
it doesn't even have to be tomorrow, but certainly by
some point next week I would like to have a copy of what
this witness said was a lever-arch file or two
lever-arch files.
Then under Horizon, Horizon user guide and Horizon
balancing guide, I would just like an electronic trial
bundle reference for those two documents.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, can I be clear what you are asking
for because these change over time, these documents.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I imagined that would be the case.
MR CAVENDER: So we want the ones for Mr Abdulla.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, please. I should have made that
point at the beginning, yes.
Thank you very much. Mr Green, you are going to
call ...
MR GREEN: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for
the ten-minute break?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes. And I think your next witness ...
MR GREEN: Elizabeth Stockdale.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. 3.15 pm.
(3.07 pm)
(A short break)
(3.15 pm)
MR GREEN: My Lord, there is one amendment to be handed up.
(Handed)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
MR GREEN: My Lord, I call Mrs Stockdale.
MRS ELIZABETH STOCKDALE (sworn)
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much, Mrs Stockdale. Do
have a seat, please.
MR GREEN: Mrs Stockdale, in front of you should be
hopefully a witness statement with your name on it.
{C1/6/24}
A. Yes.
Q. If you have a look at page 24 of that witness statement,
toward the back, there is a correction of a date. 2018
should be 2015 {C1/6/24}. Do you see that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. It's corrected on a piece of paper but not on the
screen.
A. That is correct.
Q. Subject to that, do you believe the content of your
witness statement to be true?
A. Yes, I do.
MR GREEN: Thank you. Wait there, please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender.
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER
MR CAVENDER: Good afternoon, Mrs Stockdale.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. A few introductory questions to settle you in. Am I
right in thinking you started working for Post Office on
8 May 2014?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you did so until your contract was terminated on
16 September 2016, is that right?
A. It is, yes.
Q. So that is two years and four months or so you worked
for Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. In terms of your background, can I take you to your CV
just to run through this with you. {E6/15/1} sets out
your experience prior to Post Office. Am I right that
you essentially have managed various clothes shops?
A. Yes, it was just one clothes shop that I managed.
Q. Madhouse UK?
A. That is right.
Q. You were admin manager there for five years?
A. Yes.
Q. And that involved collating information on 13 other
stores?
A. Yes.
Q. You then made that information available for the area
manager?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have to make sure that was done accurately?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did that with care?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read the information from the 13 stores and
passed it on accurately to the area manager?
A. Yes.
Q. You have then done various administrative jobs, the
latest one I think being the admin officer at the
Scarborough Disabilities Resource Centre?
A. Yes.
Q. Would I be right in thinking those roles, taken as
a whole, have involved you in reading documents and
understanding them?
A. You would.
Q. And that you are good on detail. Would you accept you
are good on detail?
A. Yes, the details that are concerned with the job.
Q. The taking on the role of a postmaster was going to be
significant and important to you?
A. Very, yes.
Q. So you were going to take care to ensure that all the
elements of what was being offered to you were
acceptable?
A. Yes.
Q. You were going to read documents carefully, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Consider their effect, and decide whether or not you
wanted to enter into a contract on those terms, is that
fair?
A. That is fair, yes.
Q. So in terms of your journey then applying to be
a postmaster, I think your interest started in
October/November 2013, is this right, when you became
aware from your son that the newsagent-Post Office
nearby was coming up for sale?
A. That is correct.
Q. I think you made an inquiry of Post Office on 8 November
{E6/1/1}. This seems to record, look at the top,
"Network Transformation Only", ticklist. The applicant
name and phone number is on the left there. This is on
8 November 2013, is that right?
A. It is, yes.
Q. The next thing that happens we see at {E6/2/1} is you
are sent a zip file I think for a number of documents.
We see that in the third paragraph there. Do you see
that?
A. I do.
Q. "In the attached zip file are some forms that you need
to complete to support your application."
And there is a link there.
"Please apply online as soon as possible."
Paragraph 3:
"The business plan can be downloaded ..."
And then there's a guide to filling in the business
plan.
Those documents are available. I don't think I need
to take you to them but they are behind tab {E6/3/1},
then {E6/4/1}, and {E6/5/1} and so on. These are the
documents that helped you prepare your business plan and
put your application together, is that fair?
A. That is fair.
Q. Meanwhile in the background Mr Dunk, who I think was the
freehold owner of the premises, if we go to {E6/13/1},
a letter from him on 18th. I think you met him on
18 November, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. This is {E6/13/1}. And essentially he was willing to
play ball and transfer the lease to you if you were
successful?
A. Yes.
Q. If we then go to {E6/16/1}, we see your application and
sort of presentation, really, I think is probably fair
to say, starting at {E6/16/1}. This is what you would
have submitted to Post Office, is that right?
A. Yes, I only have my profile page.
Q. Go for instance to page {E6/16/13} of this, "Customer
Service Skills":
"Smile."
This is a document you filled in?
A. It is, yes.
Q. If we go over the page to {E6/16/14}, you say:
"Make the customer feel welcome ...
"Listen."
What you are doing here and, say, at page
{E6/16/16}, "Training":
"Ensure all staff are reviewed and highlight any
areas of training required to maintain a high level of
customer service. Retain a record of all training for
future reference ...
"Offer staff the opportunity to attend training
courses ..."
So this was your business plan and your narrative,
really, is that fair?
A. It is, yes.
Q. What this shows, doesn't it, in terms of both its
content and style, is you are not commercially naive.
You are reasonably sophisticated, you have put together
a good business plan, and you would agree with me I
think you are not commercially naive. Would you agree
with that?
A. I would.
Q. So this is your application.
Then what happens is on 11 December, Post Office
write to you at {E6/22/1}. 11 December. You obviously
met them, you are interested in the possibility of
converting the branch to a Local model. What they set
out there is in terms of Post Office funded equipment,
paragraph 1, and we see there:
"A detailed list which would set out all the
equipment required would be included in the contract for
the operation of the new Local Post Office branch would
be sent to you in due course, if appropriate."
And if you go over the page {E6/22/2}, holding that
thought, paragraph 3, second bullet point:
"Both you and Post Office Limited entering into
a Local Post Office contract."
Your appointment would be subject to that. That was
no surprise to you, was it?
A. No.
Q. You were going to be regulated by a contract with
Post Office?
A. (Witness nods)
Q. Then if we go to {E6/38/1} we have a document,
"Modernising your Post Office. Your journey starts
here". You would have received this document?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And you would have read it?
A. I believe so at the time, yes.
Q. It is an overview, isn't it, of the process really --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that you are going to be subjected to. And you would
have seen on page {E6/38/3} of this, under "Here are the
highlights", there is a timeline and then the contract:
"A copy of the contract is included at the back of
this pack. You do not need to sign this version, it is
just for your information at this point. You can find
more details on page 6."
The contract was in fact included at the back of
this pack, wasn't it?
A. It was. A copy with a watermark that said "Copy"
throughout.
Q. Yes. Then if you go over the page to {E6/38/5} we can
see the journey ahead in various numbers. And we have
at 8 on page 5, under the heading "Signing the
contract", on the top left of the screen there:
"If the financial assessment is approved, and you
are happy to proceed, we would send you the full
contract for you to review and sign if you want to go
ahead."
That is what you understood the position to be?
A. Yes.
Q. Then on page {E6/38/6}, please, under the heading "The
contract", you are told your branch is converted to one
of the new models?
A. Yes.
Q. And some of the features are set out there:
"New contract has a minimum term of one year ...
contract with us as a company or an individual ..."
And things of that kind.
Then if we go to page 9 {E6/38/9}, please, this was
the return. I think you tick that box, is this right,
on page 9, saying:
"I confirm that having read through the enclosed
documents, I am still interested ..."
Essentially. And then that triggers I think the
process for an interview?
A. Yes.
Q. You ticked that box?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And you ticked it because you had read through the
enclosed documents?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And that included the draft contract?
A. Yes.
Q. The contract with the watermark on it.
The interview is the next thing that came,
5 February 2014. {E6/16/1}, please. This is a document
we looked at before. This is your presentation
effectively at that interview, am I right?
A. It is, yes.
Q. Andrew Carpenter was an interviewer at that interview,
do you remember that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. Have you read his witness statement?
A. I have, yes.
Q. You have. Can we take that up, it's at {C2/10/1}. What
he says at paragraph 7 {C2/10/2} is that a lot of time
has passed, he's carried out lots of interviews, and
whilst he can't recall interviewing you specifically, he
says he has a certain procedure or process he goes
through, and what he says is that he goes through that
process with you at this interview. So what I am going
to put to you now is what he says would have happened,
do you understand?
A. I do.
Q. He is not specifically recollecting that, but he is
saying that is what always happened for him, that was
his standard practice, and it would have happened with
you too.
A. Okay.
Q. What he says, it's paragraph 8 of his witness statement
{C2/10/2}, cast your eyes over, please, paragraph 8 and
the subparagraphs and then I will ask you some questions
about it, not in huge detail, just in terms to see what
he says was mentioned. (Pause)
Tell me when you have finished page 2, I will then
ask the operator to go to page 3.
A. Okay.
Q. Go to page 3 now {C2/10/3}. And page four, please
{C2/10/4}.
A. Okay.
Q. The first point is before you got to the interview,
obviously, as we have seen before, you had had
a watermarked copy of the contract and you would have
read that in advance of the interview, I am guessing?
A. I am guessing, yes.
Q. So as an overview point, nothing really that
Mr Carpenter says here he said in paragraph 8 would be
particularly surprising. This reflects the terms of the
contract, really?
A. Yes.
Q. So can we run through them. And what is your
recollection of this interview? Is it -- do you have
a strong recollection or are you trying to do your best
to sort of make it up?
A. Yes, I do. But the only sort of things I do remember
mainly was that I was surprised when I got there that
there was only one person, I was expecting there to be
quite a few people, which, as I say, was quite
surprising. And also, although it is laid out in his
witness statement, I couldn't specifically put my hand
on him ever making massive sort of things saying about
the losses and things like that. We spoke more, if I am
honest, about the way my ...
Q. Presentation?
A. Presentation was set out, because you actually said it
was quite good. So we talked about my background and
how I would like to move forward within my branch and
things like that.
Q. Okay. There is no dispute, of course, you did go
through that, the presentation. Obviously that is part
of it.
A. Yes.
Q. Can I run through paragraph 8.1 with you and following
to see whether you are able to say whether he didn't say
any of these things or mention them. Because he says
this is his practice, you might say "No, I can
definitely remember we didn't mention that". Yes? That
is what I want you to do with me, please.
A. Okay.
Q. Starting with 8.1 then {C2/10/2}, he says it is his
practice to mention that it is a contract for services,
not a contract of employment, and that therefore
personal service is not required. Is that something he
might have said?
A. Yes, I was aware of that, yes.
Q. You were aware that (a) you wouldn't be an employee?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have been an agent?
A. Yes.
Q. You were also aware there is no requirement for you
personally to do any service in relation to the branch,
you could use assistants as you wished?
A. I am not saying I was aware that I didn't have to be
there. No, I don't think I was ever told that.
Q. Would he have run through the key sections of the
contract as he says his practice was here?
A. I can honestly say I don't actually think that he did.
Q. And you have explained that you would be sent two copies
of the contract and, if you agreed, standard practice
was to sign the copies and send them back. Would he
have talked about the admin of signing the contract and
returning it?
A. It is possible.
Q. So 8.2 then. Would he have made the point about
responsibility; whether you were present in the branch
or not the branch was your responsibility, whether you
were there or whether you used assistants, would he have
made that point?
A. I don't remember him specifically saying so, but I was
already aware from the previous postmistress.
Q. Okay. When you say you weren't aware of things, is it
possible he did say these things, or any of these things
I am going to go through, and you don't remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. 8.3 {C2/10/3}, the responsibility for staffing the
branch and training. He says it was his practice that
he would make clear that you were responsible for your
staff and for training them, is that likely?
A. Yes, probably.
Q. And accounts, 8.4, would he have dealt with the
responsibility for preparing the accounts at the end of
each trading period that would be the end of four or
five weeks?
A. I think it was touched on very, very lightly.
Q. Did he deal with the fact that you would be responsible
for cash and stock and balancing the books?
A. Yes. I knew about that, yes.
Q. Would he have made the point that you would be
responsible for losses if there had been some error?
A. No, I was never aware of -- that it would ever come to
something like that.
Q. Had you not at this stage, because you were on the NTC
contract, clause 4.1 of that contract?
A. I probably had at the time, but you can't say that you'd
dissolve everything, it's ...
Q. Clause 4.1, we can go there if you like. It says
certainly the postmaster is responsible for losses.
A. Okay.
Q. I can take you to that if you like. My learned friend
is looking rather alarmed at this prospect. I am sure
he has read it himself.
If we go to {D1.6/3/13}, do you see paragraph 4.1?
Just read that to yourself. (Pause)
I think you said you probably read that at the time
of the interview?
A. I probably did. And can I just say it says that it
occurs as a result of any negligence by the operator.
There was never any proof that it was negligence by the
operator.
Q. I don't want to debate with you the meaning of the
clause, I think it is sufficient for my purposes that
you said you had read it.
So back to {C2/10/3} to carry on this process, if
I may. 8.5, unable to guarantee the fees from the
branch. Is that something that sounds familiar? The
fees are estimates and things of that kind. Did you
have a discussion about fees?
A. No.
Q. You don't think so?
A. No.
Q. Nothing about fees at all?
A. No, not that I remember.
Q. But weren't you quite interested in fees? Isn't that
quite an important part of your --
A. Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, he did. I was given some
literature with how much the fees were.
Q. He gave you information and talked it through with you
in some way?
A. Yes.
Q. 8.6, training, please. He would have said to you the
subpostmaster would receive training, split into online
learning, classroom training and on site training.
Would he have mentioned --
A. Yes.
Q. And he said he would most likely have mentioned the
operations manual and other instructions that were
required to follow and keep up-to-date, do you remember
that?
A. Yes.
Q. He said he would have made it clear the training of
assistants was a matter for you?
A. Yes, I was aware of that.
Q. Over the page {C2/10/4}, 8.7, there were certain
standards required to meet when running the branch. Is
that something he was likely to have said to you? 8.7
at the top.
A. Yes, I -- I am sure he did point it out. Yes.
Q. 8.8:
"I would have covered with Mrs Stockdale the
possibility of fraud. I would have started by saying
this was an unpleasant topic but that I needed to cover
it off ... possibility of robbery and theft from outside
sources and also from staff."
Do you remember a discussion along those lines or
him talking about that?
A. Not -- I wouldn't say it was something that he talked
about at length. He maybe did mention it.
Q. 8.9, he said he explained to you that transaction errors
were possible which could be the cause of a shortfall.
Do you remember a discussion along those lines?
A. I don't remember having that conversation.
Q. Is it possible you did have such a conversation?
A. I am sure it is possible but I don't remember, I am
afraid.
Q. Okay. 8.10, he said he would have informed you that
cash was only to be used for Post Office uses. He says
he used a standard example that you couldn't use money
to pay the window cleaner or take cash to buy wholesale
stock even if you were going to pay it back the same
day. Is that something he might have said to you?
A. Yes, I am sure he probably did, but I think things like
that to me would be common sense.
Q. At 8.11, he said he would explain it was important that
you understood the contents of the Local contract, your
standard terms, and answer any questions you may have
prior to signing it, and only to sign it once you are
happy to do so. Do you remember him making that point?
A. Yes, I think he would have.
MR CAVENDER: I am just checking one point, if I may, before
I move on. (Pause)
Moving on in time then. 10 February 2014,
{E6/31/1}. You were told you had been successful.
10 February 2014. You must have been pleased when you
received this?
A. Absolutely, but I already knew.
Q. You already knew because you had been phoned or
something?
A. Yes.
Q. So this is the formal letter telling you that you have
been successful and arranging training, you see there,
including:
"To assist with your preparations we have provided
the following distance learning workbooks ..."
Including the Post Office Local compliance training
workbook posted with a copy of this letter. And we see
the training, there is three days' classroom training,
half day support for the set up of your office, one day
further induction, further half day support, then a half
day on site support, et cetera.
Look over the page at {E6/31/2}, please, we can see
that the Local three day classroom training course
content, while we are here, you can cast your eye over
that and see what it includes:
"Take over stock and datestamp.
"Introduction to Horizon.
"Cash management."
And at the bottom:
"Stock balancing."
I will ask you about training later but that is just
an introduction.
In terms of the Post Office Local compliance
training booklet that I referred you to, that is behind
tab {E6/32/1}. And if we go to page {E6/32/3} in this
document, under the heading "Completing the training":
"As the subpostmaster, franchisee, operator, company
operator or branch manager, it is your responsibility to
make sure all your team members - as well as any
temporary or holiday relief staff - complete this
training. If you do not complete the training, and
ensure that everybody in your branch who needs to do it
completes it, Post Office will take action with you in
line with our current performance management policy."
So training was pretty important to Post Office,
yes?
A. It would appear so, yes.
Q. In terms of the contract, if we go to {E6/36/1}, we see
here on 14 February a letter to you, "Subject to
Contract". This is a formal legal type letter:
"I am delighted to confirm that you have
successfully completed the application ..."
And explains the next steps.
"There are three things that need to happen:
"1. Signature by you and Post Office Limited on
a conditional basis of the contract documents (these are
contained in the pack enclosed with this letter)."
And 2 we can see and 3.
Then:
"Full instructions on what to do with the documents
are included with the pack. Please make sure you read
the information in the pack carefully. Only some of the
documents in the pack need to be signed and returned to
us."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. As part of the pack, if we go behind the next tab to
{E6/37/1}. It says "Pack" at the top:
"Welcome to the next stage of the appointment
process!
We hope you find the information in this pack
helpful. Included in this pack are the following
documents:
"Preface and appendices.
"Standard conditions for operation of a Local
Post Office branch ..."
So the standard terms, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. A manual, a fees booklet and a bank details form.
Pausing there. This did attach a copy of the
standard conditions, didn't it?
A. As far as I can remember, yes.
Q. What it says under "Instructions" is:
"If you would like to be appointed to operate ..."
Then you are asked to sign and return the relevant
documents by a certain date.
Paragraph 2:
"We strongly suggest you take independent legal
advice before signing the relevant documents and
returning them to us. We would also suggest that you
keep a copy of the relevant documents that you have
signed and dated."
Pausing there. You would have read paragraph 2,
would you not, when you received it?
A. I would likely have read it, yes.
Q. And you would have considered whether, in fact, you
wanted to take independent legal advice or not?
A. I did, yes.
Q. Did you in fact take independent legal advice on the
contract?
A. I didn't, no.
Q. You decided not to?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You had legal advice, presumably, on the purchase of the
lease? The lease was purchased by you by a lawyer,
I suspect?
A. It wasn't purchased, no. I didn't -- no money traded
hands for anything that I did within the whole
agreement. So, no, I didn't get any legal advice.
Q. You didn't have a solicitor conveyancer acting for you
even in relation to you taking over the premises?
A. No.
Q. That was done informally?
A. Sorry?
Q. It was done informally?
A. Yes, it was done through my landlord. He had
a solicitor who did it all for us.
Q. He worked for both of you?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You just took over Karen's lease, didn't
you?
A. Yes.
MR CAVENDER: Paragraph 3:
"By signing and returning the relevant documents to
us, you will be making us a legal offer to enter into
the Local Post Office agreement ..."
You understood what they meant by that?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to {E6/38/1}, we see:
"Modernising your Post Office. Your journey starts
here."
I think we have seen that document before.
Earlier on I referred you to the operations manual.
Was that the document at {D1.6/1/1}? Can we have that
on screen, please.
That is the operations manual that was attached as
part of this pack, am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have read that or flicked through it to at
least see what it involved, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understood that was going to be part of the
contract?
A. Yes.
Q. Then {E5/139/1}. And if we can go to the following page
{E5/140/1}. It should be a frequently asked questions
page. (Pause)
{E5/139/3} Thank you.
Do you remember this document, "Frequently asked
questions"? It was part of the pack and it says, as you
can see:
"When would the new contract actually come into
effect?"
It says there are two dates, the commencement date
and the start date.
Paragraph 2, delay.
And 3:
"What are the notice periods for the new contracts?
"For main branches, either Post Office Limited or
the operator would need to give at least 12 months'
notice to the other to terminate the contract. For
Local branches ..."
And you were a Local branch, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. The notice period is six months and can be given at any
time after the contract begins.
"However, you can't bring the contract to an end
until 12 months after the start date ..."
You would have read that, presumably, before you
considered whether to sign the contract?
A. I would probably have flicked through it but I can't say
I would have digested it.
Q. But you obviously had the contract by that stage which
itself had a termination provision in it, referred to
here, of six months' notice. Presumably you would have
read that by this stage as well?
A. Yes, I would have thought so.
Q. And you would have recognised that that was a reciprocal
right: you could give six months' notice, or the
Post Office could --
A. Yes.
Q. -- but only after one year?
A. Yes.
Q. It says at 6:
"What should I do if I'm not happy with the
financial obligations ..."
And it says:
"If you are not happy to accept the financial
obligations in the contract, you shouldn't sign it.
Once you do sign the contract then you will be
responsible for all the obligations so it is important
you read it carefully. If you have any concerns, it's
important you contact your field change adviser as soon
as possible to tell them ..."
Et cetera.
That would have been something you would have read,
that document?
A. Yes, I would have done at the time.
Q. Then the contract is signed and where you sign the
contract is {D1.6/4/8}. That is your signature, isn't?
A. It is, yes.
Q. And you sent that off to Post Office because you were
happy with the terms?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted to contract on that basis?
A. Yes.
Q. And where it says at the top of the page:
"The operator and Post Office Limited hereby agree
to enter into the agreement as defined above."
What that means is on the basis of the NTC terms and
the manual, amongst other things?
A. Okay.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That is what you were signing to.
A. Yes.
Q. In terms of the reasonable expectations of someone in
your position at the time you signed this document,
I suggest the reasonable person in your position would
have expected that Horizon would be a reasonably
reliable computer system. That is what you expected?
A. Yes.
Q. I suggest to you such a person would also expect that
reasonable training or -- sorry, the training necessary
for you and your staff to operate the branch would be
provided?
A. Yes.
Q. And also the Helpline that you had been told about would
provide -- it would be a reasonable one to help and
assist you with any queries you had?
A. Yes.
Q. We then see Post Office signs and returns the contract,
{E6/57/1}. Do you see that? They then send it back to
you. That is really the end of the contracting phase?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what happens is you have classroom training on
14 April, you are notified of that at {E6/64/1}:
"Office opening ..."
On 18th May, and then this is the three day
classroom training content, and then underneath there is
the induction course content.
In terms of training materials if you go to
{E6/41/18}, please. Before I go on, I just looked at
the transcript and I need to return to a question about
the training.
The reasonable person would have thought that you
would have a training necessary for you to operate the
system?
A. Okay.
Q. As opposed to your staff. It's limited to you, the
training would be necessary for you to operate Horizon
and your branch?
A. That isn't how it was, because my son came on the same
training session with me and he was shown exactly the
same things to do as myself. I was never shown anything
over and above what a normal counter assistant would
have been shown.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You were given two slots on the
training, weren't you?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And you decided to take your son.
A. My son, yes.
MR CAVENDER: I understand. So the Locals pack then.
{E6/41/1}
MR GREEN: My Lord, I am slightly concerned. The witness
was shown the induction training, so there is the
induction training, and then my learned friend moved on.
I don't know whether my learned friend accepts the
evidence that it never happened at the branch because
building works were still going on, at paragraph 79, or
not. But the witness was looking a bit puzzled. It's
the previous page obviously.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, do you want to pursue
paragraph 79 or not?
MR CAVENDER: 79 of ...? We can cover that off now if you
like.
You saw I said there is a training and an induction
training course as well. Are you saying the induction
training didn't occur?
A. Not the training that somebody was supposed to come and
do some induction training with me in the branch
afterwards.
Q. Yes.
A. I only got the first week's training with somebody
coming and watching what I was doing.
Q. You had a week of someone coming in?
A. Yes.
Q. So you had classroom training that we're about to go to?
A. Three days.
Q. Three days.
A. Yes.
Q. And then you had someone in for a week?
A. Well, Monday to Friday.
Q. Yes. To implement, if you like, and hold your hand, so
to speak, to be on hand to assist you?
A. Yes, I suppose.
Q. So what didn't you get?
A. There was supposed to be another part of the training
where somebody came to see me to make sure that
everything was okay. But because the fitment works were
still happening, they didn't come to do that.
Q. I see. And that was in addition to the person coming in
for the five days?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. I understand.
Moving on then to {E6/41/1}, the Locals pack, "The
perfect guide to your Local Post Office branch". This
is something I think you were provided with in advance
of the training, the classroom training, is that how you
remember it?
A. I honestly cannot remember. I did receive it but
I cannot remember when it was that I actually received
it or who gave it -- I'm not even sure if somebody
didn't give it to me at some point.
Q. What it seems to be is an introduction and a reference
guide and various checklists and action plans for
training, team talk and things of that kind. Have you
been through it since?
A. I -- obviously I have referred to it and looked at it in
the past, but obviously not in the past two years, no.
Q. But at the time when you were about to take over the
branch having classroom training, et cetera, my
understanding was you got it around that time, and if
you look at {E6/41/19}, for instance, "Training plan.
Setting up your training partner". What this is doing
is setting out various training tools, on the right-hand
side --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on. It hasn't come up on the
screen.
MR CAVENDER: At the top of the page to the right:
"We have a range of training tools available to
support you on the journey to transformation."
So it seems to suggest this is an introductory type
of document to help you to get into training. But you
don't recall getting this in advance of the classroom
training, you say?
A. No, I can't honestly remember when I received this.
Q. But you might have got it prior to the training?
A. Yes, there is a possibility.
Q. So the classroom training for three days, was that seven
hours a day?
A. No, no. Absolutely not.
Q. How many hours a day were you doing?
A. Maybe two or three in the morning and then three or four
in the afternoon. We had a break for lunch and then --
Q. That is seven.
A. Seven then. You said eight, seven.
Q. I said seven, you said no, and two periods of four and
three adds up to seven.
A. Okay.
Q. So it was a full day?
A. Yes.
Q. We have seen the basic outline in the letter I showed
you earlier, if you remember, and it included balancing
and an introduction -- stock balancing and an
introduction to Horizon, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to {E6/81/1} we see some of the details of the
training. Does that look like your training programme?
A. Yes, it does, yes.
Q. We can see the second slot on day 1: intro, Horizon and
Helpline. Then we have -- we can see what we have
there. We have also then balancing I think,
introduction to stock balancing, the last -- in the
afternoon of day 3.
In terms of the training materials and things, if we
can go to {F3/192/1}. This is the balancing a stock
unit session. I'm not suggesting you got this, this is
the trainer's slides obviously. We see there "Jargon
buster", "Losses and gains, your responsibility" on
slide 3. We see:
"Immediate - physically add or remove the relevant
cash amount to achieve a nil balance.
"Settle centrally [for things £150 plus] - transfers
the amount into a holding account.
"Ensure agents fully understand the difference
between make good cash and settle centrally."
You understood that, that when you had a transaction
correction or something like that you could either
accept it or you could settle centrally and dispute it?
A. No, because I think from what I understand from the
questions, a transaction correction has got nothing to
do with you balancing at the end of the week or at the
end of the month. The transaction correction is what is
sent from the Post Office to try -- to put right
a mistake that has been made.
Q. No, I am not disputing that, that it's to put it right.
But it is what you do with them, if there are
outstanding ones when you do the monthly balance at the
month-end, what you do with the outstanding ones. The
question is what you do if you have one that is open,
when you are about to roll over in the next trading
period at month-end, did you have to accept it and pay
it or were you able to "settle" it centrally and then
dispute it?
A. At the end of the month you could settle it centrally,
but I could never dispute it. I was never told that
I was able to dispute it.
Q. We can go to this in a moment and go to the manuals, but
you could settle it centrally and ring up?
A. Yes, which is what we did.
Q. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Would you not have to pay it if it was
settled centrally?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You would have to pay it?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is my understanding of what slide
three says. Is that right, Mr Cavender?
Maybe we can increase the size of slide 3, please.
MR CAVENDER: My understanding --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on a second.
Are those the options?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right.
Mr Cavender, you were about to make a subsidiary
point.
MR CAVENDER: Yes.
There is a caveat to that, that if you settle
centrally and you want to dispute it, then you can ring
and dispute it.
A. Yes.
Q. And if you do that, you are maintaining your rights to
dispute it going forwards?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And that was your understanding?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What was your understanding of how long
that process would take to resolve a dispute?
A. I would -- to be fair, my understanding, I wasn't
100 per cent sure of the understanding. But we ...
I don't quite know how to answer that question. We just
used to -- as far as I remember, we used to just settle
it centrally and then wait for instructions from the
Post Office of what would happen next, sort of thing.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, we have been going an hour or so.
I don't know if you want to have a short break there and
how long you want to sit tonight?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What is your plan? I imagine Mr Abdulla
might have taken slightly longer than you --
MR CAVENDER: He did take slightly longer. My plan was to
finish with this witness today and I don't think I am
going to. But I would like to go through -- obviously
your Lordship is rising at 3 o'clock tomorrow.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We can start at 10 o'clock.
MR CAVENDER: I think that would probably be wise. Because
I think your Lordship said you owed me twenty minutes
from yesterday.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes. You are not running out, it is
just a question of how we allocate it.
Let me just check. Mrs Stockdale, would you be
alright to stay until 4.45 pm tonight and start again at
10 o'clock?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because I imagine you are staying in
London and not going back to Bridlington.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Trains being what they are.
Mr Cavender, would that work?
MR CAVENDER: It would. If it's 4.45pm we may even be able
to finish this witness actually.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That would be best, but please don't
feel under pressure to finish by 4.45 pm because I am
sure Mrs Stockdale was expecting possibly to have to
come back tomorrow.
MR CAVENDER: Would you like a five-minute break now for the
transcribers?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Will that be helpful?
MR CAVENDER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, we will break for five
minutes.
Mrs Stockdale, you do not have to stay in
the witness box, but you are in the middle of being
cross-examined so don't chat to anyone else about the
case.
We will have a five-minute break and then come back.
(4.08 pm)
(A short break)
(4.13 pm)
MR CAVENDER: So, Mrs Stockdale, going on then in time in
terms of your relationship, the conduct during your
relationship with the Post Office once you had started.
Large parts of your witness statement deal with your
relationship and ended up being summarily terminated
a little two years later.
Now, Post Office says the time to test your account
on those matters would be at the subsequent breach
trial, but at present you should know they don't accept
your explanations in relation to various deficits,
et cetera.
Having said that, let's go to a few of them just to
test the picture. At paragraph 101 of your witness
statement {C1/6/21} and following, you start setting out
your experience of what you call unexplained shortfalls,
is that right?
A. It is, yes.
Q. Without going through in detail in your witness
statement, you start off I think in paragraph 101 with
£172.50.
And again without going to your witness statement,
25 May 2014 is £172. 15 October, 2014, a loss of some
£3,800. 15 April, some £512 on lottery prizes. Does
that sound right?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. On 29 April 2015, the loss of £2,692. Let's go to that
one because it's getting towards the relevant time.
{E6/132/3}, please. You see the £2692.80 I referred to
there, and you have a transaction correction also of
£512 in that time.
Then on 27 May, so a month or so later, you have
a loss of £2,451. And that results in an intervention
visit, doesn't it? We see that {E6/133/1}. That is
the notes from Post Office I think at that intervention
visit. Have you seen these before?
A. Yes, I have. Yes.
Q. I think in the middle of the -- sorry, at the top of the
page there is some problem with overstating the postage
figure rather than incorrectly entering rem figures.
Then in the middle of the page you were questioned,
I think, about a transaction correction of £512
regarding National Lottery and that was confirmed to be
correct.
Then they say, third paragraph:
"There is clearly a problem somewhere with the
operation of this branch if it is sustaining such
losses. The branch does seem to have controls in place
but obviously something is going wrong ... Please refer
to my report intervention last year."
So that is where you had got to in terms of that
stage.
And your response to the situation is probably best
encapsulated later on that year, 23 August 2015
{E6/138/1}, where having been chased for various losses,
and this is your response in response to the latest
letter, so perhaps turn that up first, it's {E6/137/1},
a Post Office 18 August letter where they are chasing
you for some £5,655, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Including the £512 for the lottery prize transactions,
and the discrepancies in the April and May I referred
you to briefly, yes?
And your response to that is at {E6/138/1}. And
essentially you accept some of the errors but not
others. So for instance paragraph 1:
"The lottery transaction was an error on our part
but no physical monies were ever taken.
"2. The £900 or so stamps discrepancy was an error
on my part but I corrected it when I noticed the error
..."
And so on. So that is where you had got to at that
stage.
Going to the following year, 27 April 2016, there
was a further loss of some £18,000-odd which then led to
an audit, is that right?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. The audit we can see is on 13 May 2016. The report is
at {E6/147/1}. What we can see there in the right-hand
column --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We just need to go -- this is in Excel
I think.
MR CAVENDER: In hard copy it is just a single page.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes. I think what happens is on Opus
they just say it is a native file and that will be
somewhere in Excel.
MR CAVENDER: Can we open the -- I think it is only one page
and then the balance on the -- can we open the page,
please. (Pause)
If we look at that, we can see this is the report:
"On Wednesday 11 May I was asked to lead a tier two
audit at Sandsacre ... settled a shortage of £18,000-odd
on 27 April."
Then you have the table in the middle of a snapshot
verified audit: assured amounts, volume difference, cash
difference. This is a cash difference here of minus
£7,203, yes?
A. Yes. Sorry, yes.
Q. In terms of how the accounts got into this condition and
this loss had been dealt with, if we go to {E6/40.1/1},
this is probably another -- so it's the second page of
this. 140.1, bundle E6.
So this is Andy Carpenter reporting at this time.
And if you cast your eyes over "Funds at risk":
"A shortage of £18,000 has been settled centrally
and is showing on the concurrence report. On asking
postmistress to explain the loss, it is apparent it has
been building over a six-month period and false
accounting has taken place."
Do you see that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. In terms of the detail of that, if we go back, please,
to {E6/146/1}, we noted this a moment ago. The box at
the bottom there. This is the narrative. It is the
same event obviously. Details of the audit:
"The branch is only one single unit. Stock AA.
"I began to produce Horizon reports. Once they had
counted the cash, they noticed a sizeable shortage in
cash and asked [yourself] to compare the audit figures
with the previous night's declared cash figure. The
main difference was £5,780 in £10 notes. When Dave
asked Liz to locate this amount, she explained that this
was a false figure that she had been carrying for
an unspecified amount of time and was current when she
settled the £18,000 centrally but she didn't wish to
include this figure too at that time. There was also
a shortage of £500 in £2 coins and the branch also
declared a shortage of around £500 the previous day,
giving a total cash shortage of £6,772. There was also
a shortage in postage stamps of £308 and £122 shortage
in stock, mainly scratch cards ..."
So that is what they found on the audit.
My Lord, I'm not sure if we are in the same position
as we were with the last witness here in terms of what
I am now going to ask.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You are the only person who might know
that because I don't know what you are about to ask.
MR CAVENDER: The same sort of questions as to how this
happened and what this witness knew about it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Alright. Just give me a second.
Mrs Stockdale, I don't know if you were in court for
the whole afternoon. It is at this point, because of
the reference to false accounting, Mr Cavender is going
to ask you some questions. Under the Civil Evidence Act
of 1968 you have the right to refuse to answer any of
his questions if it would tend to expose you to
proceedings for an offence or the recovery of a penalty.
As you know, false accounting is a criminal offence. He
is going to put a series of questions to you. You might
choose to answer them all, but it is right that I warn
you that you don't have to answer any of them if you
don't want to. If he asks you a question and you do
want to decline to answer it, just say "I decline to
answer that question". Is that fairly clear?
A. Yes, that is fair.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm not being patronising, I just have
to make sure you have understood it as well, although
I know you heard me say it to Mr Abdulla.
A. I did, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, no observations on the content
of that warning?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: I have read out the various extracts of what
the auditor said on the audit. What this is consistent
with is of you not accurately reporting on your previous
monthly accounting accurately, because you say you
settled the £18,000-odd but at that time there was
a further £5,000 outstanding that you hadn't settled or
paid. In order for you to roll over with a zero
balance, you must have manipulated your accounts somehow
in order to get the balance to zero. Do you see?
A. Yes, I see what you are saying but in this case that
isn't true at all.
Q. So how did you manage to roll over then?
A. Because the -- what I said in the first place, the
£5,000-odd that I thought it was, was merely -- it was
a mistake on my part and I missed it out of doing the
settling centrally, the £18,000. It was a mistake on my
part and I did miss it out. I will put my hand up and
say that. I actually did intend to settle this one
centrally the next time I did my four week rollover but,
unfortunately, I was suspended before then so I didn't
get the chance.
Q. And in terms of the overnight shortfall of £7,900-odd,
the overnight loss between the figures that should have
been there and the figures when the auditors came in,
how do you explain that? The cash and stock shortfalls
of that £7,900 that I have shown you in the audit
report?
A. The £5,000-odd that I thought -- of cash that was
missing is included in that £7,000.
Q. What about the other £2,000-odd?
A. That was the stamps and the lottery, et cetera, and
I was unaware of that.
Q. Unaware --
A. At the time.
Q. How long had you been carrying those losses, do you say?
A. I wouldn't know the answer to that question because
I wasn't aware that they were missing at the time.
Q. So how are you saying to Post Office then that you have
effectively got 578 more £10 notes than you had and
£250 worth of £2 coins than you had that we saw on the
audit report?
A. Sorry?
Q. If we go to {E6/147/1} and go to the second page of
that, what the auditor does is give a narrative to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We haven't got there yet. Here we are.
Right.
MR CAVENDER: It's the bottom part of that. Do you see
"Outlines". I read it out earlier to you. In terms of
the cash shortage £500 in £2 coins, which is saying
there is 250 £2 coins, which in fact there weren't. Do
you see?
A. I do, yes.
Q. If you look at the top, the overnight -- the previous
night's cash declared figures, the figure of £5,780 in
£10 notes. So 578 £10 notes have been declared that
weren't really there. How had that state of affairs
come to be under your management?
A. Because, as I explained to you before, I did realise
that that amount of money was missing but I had missed
declaring it in the £18,000 and was going to put it in
the next time I did the rollover.
Q. So you were deliberately misdeclaring items of stock or
cash?
A. I wasn't doing it deliberately, no.
Q. To cover that up, no?
A. I wasn't doing it deliberately, no.
Q. If we go to your schedule of information at {B5.6/1/8}.
You deal with various shortfalls and you say at the
bottom of page 8:
"Eventually the alleged shortfalls began occurring
so regularly I was left feeling as if I had no option
but to confirm that I had settled the alleged
discrepancies in cash when in fact I had not."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. "I would keep a log of the alleged shortfalls and this
eventually amounted to the final shortfall that I felt
unable to hide any longer, as detailed below."
Then that's the £18,000?
A. That is right.
Q. So unpacking that, do I take it that you had been
mis-stating your accounts in order to hide those
discrepancies? Because you say you had settled them
when in fact you had not.
A. I don't want to answer that question.
Q. So would it be right that when, during that period, you
certified under the following words:
"I certify the content of this balancing and trading
statement is an accurate reflection of the cash and
stock at this branch."
That when you signed that in fact it was untrue?
A. I never signed it.
Q. Who did sign it?
A. No one.
Q. Okay. When you presented that as part of the procedure
in order, as you knew, to roll over into the new period,
you made that statement. You knew that that act would
result in that statement being made to Post Office. Is
that a fair way of putting it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that that statement was false?
A. I actually have a reason for this. If you will allow me
to explain?
Q. Of course.
A. Because of all the shortages that I have been -- had
have been having in the past, I was on a scheme with the
Post Office to pay back X amount of the monies through
my remuneration. They were taking 500 and
something pounds out of my remuneration every month.
And I had been told in writing and by a member of the
Post Office staff that you can't enter into more than
one of these arrangements within a year of each other.
So obviously I was already paying back the
previous amount, so I feel that, when all these things
were still going wrong with the Horizon system, I had no
other choice. Because what else could I do? I had to
carry on trading and this was the only way that I could
carry on trading. Because I felt, after everything that
had happened with myself and -- in my point of view, the
Post Office weren't doing anything to help me. I had no
other choice but to do this.
Q. You could have settled centrally and disputed it, if
that is what you wanted to do?
A. I was told that I couldn't do that within a year --
Q. By whom?
A. It was written somewhere -- I have a letter actually
with it written on.
Q. Perhaps my learned friend can show me that.
I don't think I have seen that. In terms of going back
to what you were doing at this time to hide these
amounts, you must have also been declaring cash on the
system that didn't exist?
A. No, I wasn't doing that at all.
Q. Then how did you manage to --
A. Because I had my own paper trail that I had put into --
with all my staff in my shop, and what my paper trail
said was what was in that safe was actually in the safe
on my paper trail. The difference was what Horizon was
telling me was there.
Q. But you weren't putting it in the system?
A. I was, yes.
Q. You were putting it in the Horizon system?
A. Yes, and it was Horizon that was telling me the
difference in what my reconciliation of the cash was.
Q. I must say, I don't really understand that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is basically the system that you
adopted, which I think you explain in paragraphs 99
through to about 113, where you set up your separate
robust system to keep track of all the cash.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And you put in your CCTV?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And what you are saying to Mr Cavender
I think is, even while you were doing that, there were
shortfalls appearing on Horizon?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is that right? That is what it is,
Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: But I think this is a rather different point,
as to how you were accounting for it really. Because if
you had shortfalls on Horizon and you need to roll over
into the new trading period in the next month, and you
weren't putting the cash in, and we all know you can't
roll over at this stage at least physically unless it
goes to zero, how are you telling Horizon that the
deficits you are speaking about had been made good?
A. I don't think I should answer that question.
Q. You said earlier that you revealed some of the
shortfall, the £18,000 of it, on 27 April, yes, and you
paid that. And there was a further £5,000 outstanding
at that time that you decided not to pay. But you say
you didn't declare it because you didn't have any
opportunity to. But that isn't right, is it, on the
chronology? You could easily have declared it on
28 April or 1 May or at any time prior to 13 May when
the audit took place, could you not?
A. No, because you deal with everything in a four week
period.
Q. But why couldn't you have just, on the following day,
made a payment into Horizon of the £5,000 that was
outstanding?
A. Where would I get £5,000 from?
Q. You would just have to make an accurate cash
declaration, come clean, and then the system would
produce a bit of paper and you could then dispute that
or deal with it honestly, couldn't you?
A. Yes, but what we did was we had to put -- the
£5,000 would have been put into the suspense account and
you don't settle the suspense account until the four
week period. So the £5,000 would have been there
floating around.
Q. But at least then you could have said to Post Office
when they come on the audit: look, I've come clean on
the 18, for whatever reason I didn't -- the other 5 but
the following day or the day after that I put it into
suspense. I declared it accurately. You had some two
weeks or so after the 27th to do that. Why didn't you
do that?
A. I guess ... (Pause). I am sorry, I have no answer for
that.
Q. You realised that, by behaving this way and making these
declarations that weren't true, that that was a serious
matter, is that fair?
A. I just felt at the time that I had no other choice
because of everything else that was going on with the
money I was already paying back.
Q. It cannot have come as any surprise to you that
Post Office suspended you when it came across these
facts that had shown you had been less than honest in
terms of your declarations, is that fair?
A. It is fair but who -- I would like to just say that who
ever proved that that money was ever missing in the
first place?
Q. You must have realised that this behaviour and
accounting this way would make the discovery of the
cause, the ultimate cause of the underlying losses, yes,
more difficult to discover. Because the longer they are
left undetected and you are putting transaction upon
transaction on top of it, it makes it more difficult.
Do you accept that?
A. I accept that, but the Post Office weren't helping me
anyway.
Q. But by behaving this way, not only were you being
dishonest, I suggest, but also you were preventing
Post Office knowing what was going on in your branch in
relation to these matters.
A. But they weren't helping me anyway, so I didn't really
see the point in them knowing anything.
Q. In terms of underlying losses then, did you ever try and
investigate properly in relation now to all the losses
that you are talking about here? Try and work out the
cause of any of these losses?
A. Yes, I did. As I say, the paper -- the robust paper
system was placed in my branch and my staff that I had
working for me at the time were questioned.
Q. Who questioned them?
A. Myself and my husband.
Q. Are there any notes of those meetings? I haven't seen
any.
A. No.
Q. No. What was your line of questioning? What were you
trying to discern?
A. I trusted them. One of them was my son. Why would my
son do that to me?
Q. How old was your son at the time?
A. He was about 19/20.
Q. You didn't think it possible that he might have wanted
some extra money or something, or ...?
A. No. He wouldn't do that to his mum. Why would he do
that to his mum?
Q. But you asked him anyway? And the other members of
staff?
A. Of course, and I asked all the others and they all
offered me their bank details so we could check the bank
accounts if needed.
Q. Because you weren't usually in the branch at all on
Thursdays and alternate Sundays, I think? We see that
from paragraph 8 of your witness statement.
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Who was supervising the branch on those days?
A. Diana Daniels.
Q. Who is she?
A. She was one of the ladies that worked for me. She
worked for Karen before I took over the branch.
Q. Were you running a separate commercial business
alongside the Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it possible that some of these losses could be caused
by people putting the money in the wrong till?
A. No.
Q. Or misaccounting?
A. No, absolutely not.
Q. Why not?
A. Because they were kept totally separate.
Q. No, I know. That was obviously the idea, but isn't
there a possibility of people making mistakes and --
A. No.
Q. -- borrowing cash, putting things in the wrong tills.
Things of that kind?
A. No.
Q. I haven't seen the accounts of that separate business.
They have not been disclosed. Have you been through
them to see if there are any possible blips --
A. Not personally, but my husband would know. And my
accountant. Sorry.
Q. What I suggest to you is the likely cause for the
underlying deficits were caused by errors by you or your
staff or dishonesty by staff.
A. No.
Q. And that they weren't caused by any problems with
Horizon, with your training or with the Helpline.
A. You are entitled to your own opinion but, I am sorry,
I don't agree.
Q. In relation to the Helpline, I suggest that what was
provided was a reasonable level of service on the
Helpline. Do you agree with that?
A. No.
Q. And when you say in your witness statement at
paragraph 97.1 -- can we turn that up briefly at
{C1/6/20}. You say there that the Helpline operator
spoke to you and said:
"What's the problem? It's only £3,000. It's a drop
in the ocean ..."
That was never said to you, was it?
A. It was, absolutely. I was shocked because, when she
said it to me, I had always been led in the direction of
"it's only happening to you" and then when she said that
to me I thought: well, so it's not just happening to me,
is it?
Q. It's also not true when you say in 97.2 that you
requested further training. That is also not true, is
it?
A. It is true.
Q. And when in 97.1 you say you were told that you were the
only person experiencing shortfalls, that is also not
true. The Helpline did not --
A. That is absolutely true.
Q. -- say that either, did they?
A. Because I am not the only person that that was ever
asked to.
MR CAVENDER: Thank you very much, my Lord. I have no
further questions.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: My Lord, two short points. Could you be shown,
please, {E6/128.1/1}. Can we just zoom in on the middle
email there? There is an email there from Agents
Accounting Team to Liz, sent on 5 November. In
the middle, do you see? There are three emails on the
page. The second one down is from Agents Accounting
Team to Liz, Wednesday, 5 November 2014 at 12.27. Can
you see that email?
A. I can, yes.
Q. Then "customer account" is the subject. It says:
"Dear Liz, if you're able to tell me what product
caused your loss I would be able to chase that
particular team for you. If not, I'm happy to arrange
deductions over 8 months ..."
And an asterisk, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Then it says:
"On the understanding that you are not allowed to
settle any further losses until a year after this has
been repaid."
Was that one of the statements you were referring to
earlier?
A. It was, yes. Yes, it was.
Q. Can you also please be shown {F3/68/3}. Mrs Stockdale,
there is no suggestion this document was shown to you.
This is an internal Post Office document from 2011.
Look at the foot of page {F3/68/3}, the second line:
"Branch trading forces the acceptance of the TC on
the Horizon system to enable the kit to roll over."
In any of your dealings with any of the Agents
Accounting Team or these problems, did any of them
actually ever acknowledge to you that that is the
situation you were placed in when you were rolling over?
A. No.
MR GREEN: My Lord, no further questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just give me one second. (Pause).
Thank you very much for coming. I have no questions
for you. I wasn't deliberately trying to leave you in
suspense there, I just wanted to check one of my yellow
stickers. But it had been answered.
So thank you very much for coming. You have now
finished your evidence. You are of course very welcome
to come back, but you don't need to come back tomorrow
to continue your evidence. You are now free and you can
talk about the case.
A. Thank you.
(The witness withdrew)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Gentlemen, do you want a 10 o'clock
start anyway?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, I don't think so, no. If we finish
at 3 o'clock tomorrow it will be fine. We only have one
witness.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You only have one witness. Mrs Dar.
MR CAVENDER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, 10.30 am. These documents
I am about to ask for, it is just because they are
Excel. I believe they are only one page. It is
{E6/147/1} and {E6/146/1}. If they are not just a page
then tell me tomorrow. But if they are, if I could just
have a hard copy. Because I can't get at them on
Magnum.
Anything else?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If we do finish tomorrow before
3 o'clock, and there is no pressure on you to do so, and
we have a spare twenty minutes, I might just mention the
third trial, just to have a three-way discussion. I'm
not going to be making any orders until the end of this.
If we haven't got time, it's fine, it will wait until
Thursday. It is just to keep it on your radar. But it
might be, Mr Cavender, you need until 3 o'clock or
2.50 pm and that is fine. It will wait. But that is
the only outstanding point I have going forward.
So nothing else? 10.30 am tomorrow. Thank you all
very much.
(4.50 pm)
(The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday,
14 November 2018)
INDEX
MR NAUSHAD ABDULLA (sworn) ..........................1
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN .................1
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER .................1
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER ...............149
MRS ELIZABETH STOCKDALE (sworn) ....................153
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN ...............153
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER ...............154
Re-examination by MR GREEN .....................209
(10.30 am)
MR GREEN: May it please your Lordship, I would like to call
Mr Abdulla, please.
MR NAUSHAD ABDULLA (sworn)
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you, Mr Abdulla. Do have a seat,
please.
MR GREEN: Mr Abdulla, in front of you should be a document
entitled "Witness Statement of Naushad Abdulla". If you
turn to page 10, please, and you look at paragraph 47,
look at the bottom of paragraph 47, in handwriting
{C1/4/10}:
"Since the date of this witness statement, I have
been shown a copy of the contract at D2.1/4. I do not
recall having seen this before."
Subject to that amendment, is your statement true to
the best of your knowledge and belief?
A. It is.
MR GREEN: Thank you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. Mr Cavender.
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER
MR CAVENDER: Good morning, Mr Abdulla.
A. Good morning.
Q. A couple of questions by way of introduction, hopefully
uncontroversial. You started working for Post Office,
the Charlton branch, in January 2007, and you were
terminated on 14 April 2009, does that sound right?
A. 8 May 2009, did you say, terminated?
Q. Terminated 14 April 2009.
A. No, that is wrong.
Q. Is it?
A. Maybe I was suspended at that date, but terminated on
8 May 2009.
Q. Very well. But you worked for just over two years for
Post Office?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. The questions I am going to ask you are about events
occurring in 2006, at the beginning of your appointment,
some 11 years ago now. Would it be fair to say your
details of the -- your memory of the details of those
events is at best vague, would that be a fair overall
assessment?
A. Sorry, did you say 11 years ago?
Q. 2006 to now. We are now 2018. That's about eleven
years, isn't it?
A. Yes, but a traumatic event like that you can't forget
even though you try, it is just -- you try and forget
it, but I still remember vividly. But if there is
anything I do not remember I will let you know.
Q. Okay. What was traumatic about receiving a contract or
some letters?
A. I was talking about the whole event.
Q. Okay, but if you focus on the debate we are going to
have, I think, about receiving letters, receiving the
contract, things of that kind, that wasn't very
traumatic, was it, at the time, or memorable?
A. Receiving the contract and the letters of acceptance,
you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. No, that was a happy occasion. I was very happy to be
selected.
Q. Yes. So that wasn't something that was traumatic or
would particularly sear itself on your memory, is it?
A. Yes, at the beginning when I was selected, after the
interview, yes, I was happy to receive the position as
a subpostmaster because of all the hard work and effort
I had put into the application.
Q. Let's carry on with your background then. So prior to
applying to Post Office you had worked in
the pharmaceutical industry, is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct. I was a sales rep and very
successful. I won many awards. It's quite depressing
to -- when I think about where I could have been, maybe
a regional sales manager --
Q. You were selling medicines to GP practices --
A. Sorry, you just cut me off. I was just talking.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do finish your answer.
A. So yes, as I said I was -- I don't know where I would
have been now if I didn't join the Post Office. I would
have probably been a regional sales manager. The reason
I say that, because I was ambitious, I was motivated,
I was self-confident, which I'm not any more.
MR CAVENDER: That job involved you selling medicines to GP
practices?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. And that involved you reading documents and
understanding them, understanding your products and the
detail and what it was you were selling to GPs?
A. Sorry, can you repeat that?
Q. In selling things, selling pharmaceutical products to
GPs, that involved you reading and understanding
documents?
A. About medicines and about sales techniques, yes.
Q. It's important to get the detail right to distinguish
one particular medicine from another, am I right?
A. It was mostly about the therapeutic areas and how the
medicines would affect those therapeutic areas.
Obviously you had to know your stuff when talking to GPs
and other healthcare professionals. So, yes, you would
have to know your stuff regarding medicines and how they
interact with the body and side-effects and things.
Q. And "know your stuff", as you say, you would have got
that presumably from a briefing paper from the producer
of that product?
A. No, it was mostly on the initial training, the induction
training where the products were trained.
Q. But presumably you were given some kind of handout or
something, some summary --
A. Of course, yes.
Q. -- of what you were entitled to say about the product?
A. Definitely.
Q. And you had to read that carefully?
A. I had to revise it, yes, because there were tests
afterwards, in the next day or so.
Q. You had to understand what was in that document?
A. It wasn't a document as such, it was more product
information -- medical information, product information,
if you like. I don't know what sort of document you are
referring to.
Q. It required you to be good on detail, getting into the
detail and understanding it, do you accept that?
A. It was studying, really.
Q. In your personal CV, if we go to bundle E4.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Would you like to move that screen a bit
closer to you? Feel free.
A. Perfect, thank you.
MR CAVENDER: Go to {E4/6/1}, please. That is your CV,
I think?
A. Yes, that is my CV.
Q. If you look at the personal profile at the top, you say
you are:
"Someone with excellent communication skills ...
quick to grasp new ideas and concepts."
Is that a fair summary of your characteristics?
A. Yes, of course. I wouldn't have put that on otherwise.
Q. And you say under "Skills and Abilities" at the bottom,
you have:
"Excellent organisation and planning skills ..."
Is that also correct, do you think?
A. Sorry, at the bottom ...
Q. Under "Skills and Abilities".
A. Yes:
"Excellent organisation and planning skills, strong
work ethics and personal values."
Organisation and planning skills in terms of
planning meetings, planning the days that you would go
out and see your customers. And then also planning in
terms of recording the events of meeting the customers.
Q. The second bullet point under "Skills and Abilities":
"Intelligent and analytical outlook ..."
Is that a fair description of your abilities?
A. Yes, analytical, I mean again recording information,
recording information on like Excel, just basic Word,
Excel, Microsoft documents, but nothing too major in IT.
Q. If we go to {E4/33/1}, the notes of your interview,
under "Standards", so the bottom box, second paragraph:
"Current role he advised us he is computer champion,
all team members have to feed in logs on daily basis
..."
You have to make checks to make sure they are all
completed correctly.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. It is fair to say that that would require you to be good
on detail.
A. I'm not saying I'm not good at detail. The thing is
with this, with being the Voyager champion at the time,
it was more about relaying information to head office.
So I would collect the information from my team and just
relay it to head office, so -- and make sure everyone
else was putting in their information correctly. So
when you have a sales call at the end of the day you
input -- or as soon as you can you input the data into
your sales force, the Voyager system, and that records
next objectives and things like that what to do when you
go and see them again.
So I was making sure they were entering that into
the system correctly and they were logging it all in
correctly on a day-to-day basis. And that was my role,
I was being a champion. So I believe that answers your
question.
Q. You also had to, according to this, ensure that
the figures tallied up. You had to go through the
figures and make sure that they were entered correctly
and the figures tally up?
A. No, not really. There was no figures. It was just
about if someone hadn't put -- I would know where
someone hadn't done -- put in the figures for that day.
So it wasn't actually the figures, it was just inputting
the figures for that day. So every day we would have to
get it back to head office.
Q. But what Elaine Ridge has recorded here you saying at
this interview, in the second paragraph, is:
"... completed correctly and if need be changes so
that the figures tally up."
You say she has got that wrong, do you?
A. Yes, I think that is not accurate.
Q. Again by way of background, going into this process of
purchasing the branch and contracting with the
Post Office, this was going to be a significant
commitment for you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was going to be important to you?
A. It was important in -- I wanted to make a better life
for myself, a more stable life where -- with the
pharmaceutical industry at that time there was a lot of
mergers happening, that is when Glaxo and SmithKline
merged, and other companies merged as well, so a lot of
teams were being disbanded. It happened to me once
where I was made redundant, luckily I got a position
with another team.
I had small children, a mortgage to pay, so I wanted
something more secure, more stable, and something more
lucrative, really. I believed the Post Office was the
right position for me.
Q. But you were going to take care and use the commercial
skills you have been describing in assessing whether or
not --
A. Sorry, I wouldn't say commercial skills. I would say
sales skills.
Q. But you are not commercially naive, are you?
A. I was.
Q. If you are going selling products to GPs and trying to
increase sales and all the rest of it, you couldn't
really describe yourself as commercially naive, could
you?
A. It depends on the context.
Q. Just generally. At that time you were not
a commercially naive person?
A. I had never owned a business before. I was just working
for a company in sales.
Q. And in terms of the due diligence you did before you
entered into the purchase of the -- with Mr Sandhu for
the premises and with Post Office --
A. Of Charlton, Church Lane?
Q. Yes, you did your own investigations or what people call
due diligence, is that fair? You looked into the
background?
A. My discussions with Mr Sandhu were primarily regarding
the lease. I was concerned about only having
a twelve-year lease. I was concerned that the price had
increased by £10,000 and we were negotiating on that,
and I was -- it was just about lease matters, so just
the terms of the lease. We discussed staffing and
I agreed from his suggestion to keep the staff on,
because they were experienced and I could learn from
them. But again just mainly about the lease.
I did go to the branch, spend a few hours there, see
the customers, how -- going in and out, making sure it
wasn't completely dead. Because when I received the
particulars of sale I had two figures for the
remuneration, one was £80 or £70,000 and from the
Post Office it was £114,000. So I was just checking to
make sure why that discrepancy was there, and again that
was -- and when I did start I just decided, no, it was
very low, it was about £70/80,000, and I did bring it up
to £120,000 in the first year.
Q. Did you speak to Mr Sandhu about running a Post Office,
what it was like, the good bits, the bad bits?
A. Not really. I had experience with my parents. They ran
a Post Office in about the early 1990s.
Q. Did you ever work in the Post Office?
A. No, I was too young.
Q. Not even informally? You didn't help around --
A. Well, you know, I was round the back just observing
really. But they were happy. They had the old paper
system, none of this Horizon stuff. So they were happy.
Everything was running to plan, they were making a good
life for themselves, and that is the experience
I received from my observations.
Q. You knew from the earlier stages that your relationship
with Post Office was going to be governed by a written
contract, presumably?
A. Yes, some kind of contract would have been in place.
Some kind of agreement, yes.
Q. And presumably you were looking out for that to be
provided to you at some stage during the process?
A. Yes. The thing is regarding the contract, I just
clarify now, I have never received the contract. I have
never seen the contract. Sorry, I have seen the
contract since, but I never received the contract, never
have, never will, by the Post Office, sorry, and -- but
I have seen it since. And I understand why they didn't
send it or they omitted it, whether it was intentionally
or unintentionally, because I would never have signed
it, having seen it since, and I would have gained some
legal advice beforehand. And especially regarding so
many clauses, so many of these -- it's so confusing and
so on, so I would have had to seek legal advice.
And the clauses such as termination, zero months,
zero and three months, no one would sign it. No one
would sign it in their right mind. There would be no
agents left.
Q. You realised, if we go to paragraph 10 of your witness
statement {C1/4/2}, that you were going to be
self-employed? You realised that, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also realised you were going to be an agent of
the Post Office?
A. Can I stop you there. "Agent" -- it was more
"franchisee" at that time. That was the word that was
branded, "franchisee", not "agent". When I think about
franchisee, I think about McDonalds and Domino's, and
I don't think if I was franchisee for them someone would
come in unexpectedly, carry out an audit and shut me
down. If I was working for McDonalds -- actually I have
experience working with Domino's in management and what
they would do was if there was something wrong, if they
were not productive, it would flash up on the system
that you -- that the productivity is not there, so you
need to get rid of some drivers or get rid of some staff
so your productivity would go up. And if still not,
they would send someone in and they would try and help
and advise and support. That was all I was looking for
with the Post Office, and that is all any subpostmaster
looks for with the Post Office, is just some support.
Q. Mr Abdulla, in the franchisee model you describe, the
franchisee is using his own stock, his own money, isn't
he? In the Post Office example --
A. No, I am just giving you an example of how it would
probably work and my experience of when I was there
working at Domino's.
Q. You can leave Domino's to one side. What I am putting
to you is that in the Post Office model you are
contrasting it with you are using Post Office money, am
I right, in the branch?
A. Yes.
Q. And Post Office stock in the branch?
A. Correct.
Q. Yes. And you were responsible, you understood you were
going to be responsible to account to Post Office for
what you did with that money and that stock, am I right?
A. It was the Post Office's money, that is correct, and it
was the Post Office's stock. But I was responsible
and ... I was trained, I was responsible for the stock
and the cash, yes, that is correct. But going into the
actual office and the position, I was not aware of --
I was not aware of the lack of support that I would be
receiving if there was a problem.
Everything was fine regarding training, classroom
training, and so on, but it is only -- the only problem
I have is when you have a problem there is no support.
You have the Helpline which is useless, to be honest.
The Helpline -- I have heard about this second tier, and
maybe they didn't think I was important enough to put me
to the second tier, but what I experienced from the
Helpline, it was just useless.
And I don't believe that all helplines do have
a second tier because -- again from some experience
I have. But why do you have a first tier if they are
useless? Just have a second tier then.
Q. Mr Abdulla, can we go back to the question, please.
A. Sorry.
Q. In terms of the written contract you expected to be
provided with, you would have expected that to contain
detailed terms, wouldn't you, regulating your
relationship with the Post Office?
A. I don't know because I didn't receive any. All
I received was a welcome pack and a 1M document and
I had to send my bank details and the actual contract
was not there. So I don't know what I was -- what --
sorry, what was the question?
Q. You have accepted that in principle you were expecting
a contract, and what I am putting supplemental to that
is you would have expected such a contract to contain
the detailed terms governing your relationship with
Post Office?
A. To tell you the truth, I -- I was really happy at the
time of -- when I was accepted, so I just signed
everything and sent it off the same day. Because
I didn't want to be made redundant if it was going to be
the case with my job, so I wanted to have this, as
I said before, more secure position.
Q. Presumably you had a contract with your pharmaceutical
company?
A. Yes, that is correct, and in that contract you actually
signed the contract. That is another thing I wanted to
bring up. I am not a contracts expert, but when you buy
a house you sign the contract, when you put your house
for sale you sign the contract with the agent. So is
there a copy of a signed contract with the Post Office?
Can you provide me with one?
Q. We will go through the documents in a minute, if that is
all right.
Did you ask Mr Sandhu about his relationship with
Post Office and ask for a copy of his contract when you
were chatting with him?
A. Sir, my Lord, discussions with Mr Sandhu, as I said
before, were regarding the lease. Anything regarding
the contract I would have assumed to be personal and
I wouldn't have asked for it. No one from the
Post Office told me to ask for a contract from
Mr Sandhu, to look through his terms, to look through
anything regarding his contract. And if they had told
me, I would have asked Mr Sandhu. But because they
didn't, I did not ask Mr Sandhu for his contract to have
a look at his terms and conditions. And I presume even
now that that would be a personal thing to him, and why
would he give that to me to look at? If you see.
Q. Would it be personal? You would expect the terms to be
standard terms, wouldn't you?
A. There would be standard terms and there would be
personal terms to his position.
Q. So there would be no harm in showing you the standard
terms, would there?
A. I am sure it would have been all in one. And as I said,
it didn't come up. It wasn't something that was
highlighted by the Post Office to do. And if it was,
I would be concerned as well, because why are they
telling me to have a look at his? Surely there must
be -- it's a red flag to me. If they say to me, "Okay,
you need to look at his terms and conditions or his
contract", that would say to me that there is something
wrong here and I need to seek legal advice.
Q. Did you ask your parents about their relationship with
Post Office and their contractual relationship?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And what did they tell you?
A. They were happy. The only reason they sold their
post office was because it was at quite a distance away
from where we lived, but they were on the old paper
system, and they say that they were happy, life was
easier, mistakes were rare. So, yes, the only reason
they sold it, as I said, was because of the distance.
Q. So moving forward then with your application itself, if
we go to {E4/10/1} we see a letter of 6 September 2006.
Do you remember this? To yourself.
A. Yes. There is another letter in 2005, I believe that is
an error, and the whole way through it is just riddled
with errors, wrong dates, wrong addresses. So if there
are errors before and after, surely errors can be made
during my time. So this is an example. There is
another letter similar to this, I don't know if it is
exactly the same, but it is a date from 2005. Have you
got that?
Q. Can we just focus on this letter?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on.
Mr Abdulla, I know that it has been a very difficult
emotional experience.
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And I know that there is lots that you
want to say. I have read your witness statement really,
really carefully, and it is understandable on a human
level that you are cross with some of the points
Mr Cavender is putting to you. But what you have to do,
please, and it might be quite difficult, is just listen
to whatever the question is and do your best to answer
it.
A. Okay, my Lord. Sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am aware of the other letter of 2005
because you mention it in your witness statement so
I have seen it.
So it might come across to you that this is very
one-sided but that is just the way it appears. So do
your best just to focus on what he asks you.
A. Sure. I am just putting my ...
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I entirely understand.
Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: So looking at this letter, and particularly
looking to the final paragraph, we see there you are
being told that:
"Subpostmasters hold a contract for service with
Post Office ... they are agents, not employees of the
company. As such, postmasters are responsible for the
provision of their own staff and premises."
You would have read that at the time, am I right?
(Pause)
A. I think I only read the first paragraph.
Q. What, just the "Thank you" one?
A. Yes.
Q. You remember that now, do you? That eleven years ago
you remember reading the first paragraph and not the
final paragraph?
A. Yes, that sounds familiar. Only the first paragraph
sounds familiar to me. That is the only thing
I remember.
Q. What about the second paragraph, do you remember reading
that?
A. I believe, yes, there was a form that was going to be
sent to me, so that seems familiar as well actually,
yes.
Q. Because you have to know where to send your application,
don't you:
"Your full application should be forwarded to --"
A. This is before the application form, correct?
Q. Indeed.
A. Yes. So presumably on the application form and the
letters enclosed with that they would have an address to
send the application form on there.
Q. What about the third paragraph, do you say you read
that? Do you remember reading that?
A. No. As I said, I was just -- I was just -- it's just
a standard letter to say you are interested in a branch,
so there's not really anything further to read from
that.
Q. But this was the first communication you had from
Post Office so presumably you were quite interested in
it? (Pause)
A. Anyway, I do realise that there would be some kind of
contract, you know, with the Post Office. That is not
a dispute there.
Q. If you go over the page {E4/10/2}, there is indication
of the estimated remuneration. Were you interested in
that? Would you have read that?
A. Yes, this is where I probably skipped to. This is what
I was interested in.
Q. Mr Abdulla, you said at the beginning that you thought
you had only read the first paragraph, was your first
answer to me, about this letter.
A. The thing is I didn't realise because of this, it is not
in a page format, it is a screen format, so I don't know
what is going to be next. So how do I know if I have
only read ... if you see what I mean? It is not in
a page format.
Q. That is your answer?
A. Yes, because I didn't know what was coming next.
I didn't know the second page of this. So, yes, this is
what I skipped to and this is what I was referring to
earlier about the estimated remuneration of £106,000,
and on the Christie's particulars of sale it was £70 or
£80,000.
Q. Isn't the truth of the matter, Mr Abdulla, this was the
first communication with Post Office and you would have
read it all reasonably carefully? Not the paragraphs
you like, ignoring the paragraphs that I want you to
read. Isn't that the truth?
A. I would say I may have just skimmed over the other
paragraphs, but just for actual focusing on it would
have been the ones that I am interested in.
Q. And this had I think attached to it something called
"Conditions of Appointment", which have been lost and
we can't find, but they would have been, I suggest,
similar to those that Mr Sabir had --
A. Sorry, would they be with this document or the actual
application? Because this is just an interest -- to
register your interest, isn't it?
Q. If you look at it, it's a four-page document. It says
"1 of 4" in the bottom left --
A. Yes. I don't think the conditions would have been in
this one but I could be wrong, I am not sure.
Q. Moving on then to 9 November, the invitation to the
interview. So that is {E4/30/1}, please. Before I ask
you anything, just remind yourself of the document.
Because if it is on a screen or something you are saying
you can't read or understand what is in later parts.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think the witness said he didn't
realise what was on page 2.
MR CAVENDER: Exactly.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So --
A. Yes, it's not because I can't read.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, just pause for a second.
Read that page. When you have got to the bottom just
say you have finished, we will scroll to the next page
to let you see that, and when you have read the actual
document we will go back to this page so Mr Cavender can
ask you questions.
A. Thank you, my Lord. (Pause)
So before this there was obviously the application
form and the business plan that needed to be filled in
before they invited me to interview. So you skipped
that intentionally, is that right?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, don't worry about that, all
right? Mr Cavender is just -- he has relatively limited
time so he is not going to be able to put every document
to you.
A. That is fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have you now read page 1?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we go on to page {E4/30/2}, please.
Just read that. There are 17 of this pages, we are not
going to do this for the whole 17, it is just so you can
remind yourself of what the document is and then
Mr Cavender is going to take you to some parts, okay?
A. Yes. Thank you. (Pause)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, just remind me, the 17
includes some of the attachments I think, is that right?
MR CAVENDER: Yes. It's the whole thing with the various
appendices.
A. Yes, that is fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And just on to the next page, just
quickly, so you can see the third page {E4/30/3}. All
right?
A. Yes, that is fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, back to you.
MR CAVENDER: Actually if you go to the fourth page too,
there is something you signed saying you will or will
not attend an interview, on {E4/30/4}. Do you see that?
A. Yes. Again, the dates, I had two dates on this --
sorry, my Lord, but there were two dates on this so
I wasn't sure which date it was.
Q. Okay. A question about this document: you received this
document on or around 9 November 2006, am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would have read that document around that time?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have -- if you go to page 5 of this document
{E4/30/5}, which is an attachment entitled "Brief
summary of certain sections of the subpostmasters
contract", do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have also received those, first of all, with
this letter? It's page 5 of 17. Do you accept you
received that "Brief summary of certain sections of the
subpostmasters contract"?
A. I do, but it is not something that is immediately
sticking in my head. So I believe I received it but
I don't know the details of it. But yes, I agree that
I have received that.
Q. When you received it, as you say, you had filled in the
application, yes? You put in your business plan et
cetera, and made some effort to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes.
A. A lot of effort -- a lot of time, a lot of effort, yes,
definitely.
Q. So this was important for you as the next stage to
attend the interview to, using your words, sell yourself
effectively to the Post Office, and your business plan,
to be taken on as an agent, is that fair?
A. They were interested in my sales abilities and my sales
background, so that was -- I believe that was one of
the reasons or the main reason that I was successful in
this application, because I was all about sales, and
with the Post Office it is again about sales and making
money. As agent or a franchisee it is working together
to make money for yourself and for the franchisee that
you are working with in a sort of partnership where you
are beneficial to both you and your franchisee.
Q. Can we go back to the letter, please. So this would
have been the last thing you had received prior to
attending the interview, yes, that was being planned,
am I right? This sets up the interview, doesn't it?
A. What was the question, sorry?
Q. This would have been the last thing you received --
A. Yes.
Q. -- from Post Office, of any substance, prior to
attending the interview?
A. I'm not sure. There could have been other papers that
were sent regarding the interview but I am not
100 per cent sure.
Q. In terms of preparing for the interview, it would be
important for you to have read this letter and
understood its contents?
A. Yes, that is correct. But as I said, it is not the
last -- it might not be the last document that
I received from the Post Office before the interview.
Q. Let's have a look through it and see what you would have
found out when you did read it.
If you go to page {E4/30/2}, please, the third
paragraph, it says:
"I also attach a brief summary of conditions of the
subpostmasters contract for your attention. Please note
that the summary does not represent the complete terms
and conditions of the contract and may not be relied
upon for any purpose by a subpostmaster. It only covers
certain sections of the contract to give you an idea of
what to expect and should not be used in place of
a thorough review of the contract. You will receive
a full copy of the contract if you are successful ..."
You would have read that, wouldn't you, on receipt
of this letter?
A. Yes, again it says the conditions of subpostmasters --
there is no contract as such.
Q. What it says is, there are certain sections in the bit
we are going to see in a minute, you will receive a full
copy of the contract if you are successful?
A. Yes, I believe there were a few points from the contract
which I did skim over again, and as it says, it is not
going to be relied upon, and it is only for certain
sections of the -- obviously I didn't pay too much
attention because if it says it is not to be relied
upon, so I don't know if it is -- those conditions are
going to be in the actual contract or not. So there is
no point in really studying those points really.
Q. Is that really true? Just think back for a moment what
you just said, the logic of that. On your case you had
no idea at this stage what --
A. I was just going through --
Q. Please. At this stage you say you had no idea what the
terms of the contract were going to be, and this was
an early sight of a summary of certain of the terms, so
surely you would be very interested indeed in what they
might cover?
A. Why does it say that:
"It only covers certain sections to give you an idea
and should not be used in place of a thorough review of
the contract."
Q. It is saying what it says. This is an early summary for
you to prepare for the interview, so you know what job
you are being interviewed for and the terms, but you
will get a full contract, and you need to review that
fully as well.
A. It also says:
"Please note that the summary does not represent the
complete terms and conditions of the contract and may
not be relied upon for any purpose ..."
If you hear that, if it is not something that you
cannot rely upon --
Q. Mr Abdulla --
A. I'm not a contract expert, but if I hear that then --
Q. Mr Abdulla, you would have read this, and if you had,
if you go to page 5 of this, please {E4/30/5}, under the
heading "Contract", you would have learned, not for the
first time, that subpostmasters are agents of
Post Office. Yes? So that wouldn't have been new to
you. You knew that already, didn't you, that you were
going to be an agent, is that fair?
A. As I said before, it was more franchisee to -- that was
the term branded. But agent, yes, that is fine as well.
I knew I wasn't going to be an employee and I would be
self-employed.
Q. You say "franchisee"; I have not seen the word
"franchisee" yet in any of the papers I have taken you
to. In terms of branding, I have seen "agent" twice,
and that is what you were going to be, wasn't it?
A. It was more on the website and the blurbs and the --
Q. The website?
A. -- paperwork.
Q. Which website?
A. Post Office website.
Q. So you did some research by looking at the website?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And what did you find on there?
A. I found that there was a lot of blurbs on how we would
be working together and for the benefit of the community
and, you know, all lovey dovey things. So, yes. And
there was the word "franchisee" that was branded about
a lot.
Q. Going back to this page, if I may, page 5 {E4/30/5},
"Assistants":
"The subpostmaster must provide, at his own expense,
any assistance which he may need to carry out the work
in the Post Office branch. Assistants are employees of
the subpostmaster. The subpostmaster will be held
liable for any failure on the part of the assistants to
provide a proper standard of service ..."
That represented your understanding at the time,
anyway, didn't it, that if you employed assistants then
they would be your responsibility, is that right?
A. Can I read that again, sorry?
Q. Of course. (Pause)
A. Yes, that is fine. The assistants I had, as I said,
they were taken over from the previous subpostmaster and
they were well experienced. The minimum term a person
had been there was ten years. So --
Q. Mr Abdulla, can you concentrate please on the points
I am making, which is your recognition at the time that
if you employed assistants --
A. We're talking about assistants, so I'm --
Q. -- you would be responsible for them. That is the point
I am trying to get you to address.
A. I would be responsible for them in terms of?
Q. Any losses they create, their conduct generally.
A. So work related.
Q. Yes, of course.
A. Okay. Right, yes. So I would be responsible for --
yes, work related, so, yes, any losses.
Q. Okay, thank you very much.
A. Anything regarding -- so I would give them some sales
training if they needed it. But regarding anything on
Horizon or anything regarding the products, they were
well versed, and in fact they had to train me and they
had to give me advice because they were so experienced
and I had full faith in them.
Q. Go on to page {E4/30/6} in the same document, at the top
there, four lines down:
"The subpostmaster is expressly forbidden to make
use of the balance due to Post Office for any purpose
other than the requirements of the Post Office service
and he must on no account apply to his own private use,
for however short a period, any portion of Post Office
cash entrusted to him ... Misuse of ... cash may lead to
termination ..."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, that is pretty standard. I wouldn't use
Post Office money for myself. I wouldn't even touch
a penny of the Post Office money. No problem with that.
I wouldn't use it for wages to assistants. I would not
misuse any of the Post Office cash or -- and, no. So
I wouldn't -- no, it wouldn't even cross my mind.
Q. You would have read this at the time, yes?
A. I was aware of this anyway because this is pretty
standard, isn't it? It is not my money --
Q. You had to honestly account to Post Office, didn't you?
A. Are you saying I didn't honestly account?
Q. We will come to that.
A. For my understanding that obviously -- regarding
accounts, there is different kinds of accounts. The
accounts on a trading period, yes, they had to be
obviously ...
Q. Honest and true?
A. Yes, which I believe I always have been, and ...
Q. Going to the next paragraph, "Losses":
"The subpostmaster is responsible for all losses
caused through his own negligence, carelessness or
error, and also for all losses caused by his assistants.
Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good
without delay."
So that clause is being specifically brought to your
attention.
A. And I carried this out.
Q. Sorry?
A. And this was carried out.
Q. Your interview was on 22 November, so some twelve days
after this letter, so you had quite a long time to study
it in advance of the interview. Would you accept that?
A. I wouldn't say I was studying it. Why would I study it?
Q. You had the opportunity to do so.
A. The interview wouldn't be based on this. I wouldn't be
tested on this. So I wouldn't study it. I would have
read it once, maybe twice, but not studying it.
Q. You would look rather foolish if an issue came up, or
you were asked a question covered by this letter and you
looked blank, you would look foolish then, wouldn't you?
A. But I knew they wouldn't ask me any -- well, regarding
the -- in the interview, they wouldn't -- and they would
raise anything on the interview regarding, if they
needed to raise anything, because I'm not -- I am going
into the -- as a new person, I'm not versed with all
these terms and contracts and whatever it is.
Q. But Mr Abdulla, the interviewer could easily say,
couldn't they, on this basis, "Thank you very much.
What do you know about Post Office? What is your
understanding about your responsibility for losses?"
And if you say "I don't have any idea at all", when you
have a document that explains your liability --
A. As I said before, I was aware of --
Q. -- you would look rather silly, wouldn't you?
A. I was aware of losses, and also that the Post Office
money is their own, it is not mine. That is just
common sense. So there is nothing to review and
research and study for that, really, because I took it
in the first time.
Q. You had the interview on 22 November 2006, as I say. Do
you have any clear memory of that interview now, sitting
there now?
A. Yes, I do. So initially it was --
Q. No, can I ask you questions, please. It is not for you
then to give a soliloquy about it.
A. I thought you had finished, sorry.
Q. No, I am going to ask you specific questions about it.
Elaine Ridge was one of the people interviewing you,
do you remember that?
A. Correct.
Q. She has made a witness statement in this action. Have
you read that?
A. I have, yes.
Q. You will be aware, therefore, that she doesn't have any
specific memory of the interview, but what she does do
is say she had a certain practice and says she would
have followed that practice with you in this interview.
What I want to do if I can is, by reference to that
witness statement, take you to what she says she would
ordinarily have done and so would have done with you.
So that is bundle {C2/12/3}, please. Have you
looked across paragraph 12 previously? Have you read
that to yourself?
A. I have seen this before, yes.
Q. What she says --
A. Can I just refresh?
Q. Of course, yes. (Pause)
A. Okay.
Q. So she says what she would have done. If we go through
them one by one, do you recall her saying that, by way
of a checklist almost, the subpostmasters contract was
a contract of services, not of employment?
A. I don't remember specifically but again I knew that fact
anyway.
Q. 2 is remuneration. 3, that they could change the
products and services?
A. I believed, yes, the services would -- they would be
updated or new products would be introduced which did
occur frequently.
Q. And 12.4, that you would be responsible for everything
whether you were there or not?
A. I don't remember it specifically, but again I knew I was
the person responsible for the branch, and everything
that happened as being a manager or a subpostmaster,
that I was responsible for everything that did happen in
the branch.
Q. And 12.5 similarly, you would be responsible for hiring
and training assistants as they --
A. Again I don't remember going through this, but I knew
about this again from documents before, and from
previous experience with my parents, that I would be
responsible for hiring staff, and, yes, my assistants.
Q. In terms of 12.6, that you would have to prepare branch
accounts regularly, you knew that? At this stage --
I think we were on monthly accounting, weren't we, by
this stage?
A. Yes. This again, I don't remember her saying any --
I remember that the branch accounts were mentioned but
not any figures like £1,000 or £1, that was not
mentioned.
Q. Let's take it in stages. Did she emphasise or mention
that you were required to make good any losses
immediately?
A. Again I don't remember it as such, as you say
immediately, but I knew I had to make good losses.
I don't know if it was from her mentioning it or from
anything else, but I knew that anyway, so it was just --
if this is her checklist, so I don't -- I don't know if
she went through this -- I know she didn't go through
everything on this checklist but she might have gone
through some things on this checklist.
Q. Because she says it is her practice to go through and
give an example of a loss, whether it's £1 or £1,000
and --
A. No, I specifically do not remember any figures
mentioned. So even if it was £1 or £1,000, I don't
remember any figures mentioned.
Q. Is it possible she did mention it and you don't remember
it now?
A. No. I said I specifically do not remember --
I specifically remember that she did not mention any
figures.
Q. Then we deal with training, Helpline. The training,
Helpline was mentioned?
A. Training, yes, of course training would have been
mentioned, training which would be the next stage if
I was successful. I enquired about the training, how
long and so on, how would it be made up. That would be
one of my questions I would ask at the end if it wasn't
covered anyway in an interview.
Helpline, I can't remember if she mentioned the
Helpline or not. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But
if she did it would have been just "There is a Helpline
available", not specific, any details of when to ring
them or how to ring them or any phone numbers.
Q. She says it's also her practice to mention the
possibility of you being suspended if anything untoward
happened at the branch. Do you remember her saying
something along those lines?
A. No, I don't remember anything like that. When you are
going for an interview, if someone mentions something
like that, you know, again you are going to have red
flags waving. You are going to think, hang on, this is
not right. If you are going for a job interview they
don't mention like you are going to be -- you could be
suspended and so on when you are going for an -- I know
it is -- you are not going for a job, but it is similar
in a way. But, yes, this would have been -- this would
have raised my eyebrows, if you like.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What about ending the contract
immediately, do you remember if she mentioned that?
A. Definitely not, no. That would have really been
worrying for me and I would have made something -- you
know, enquired more if she had mentioned that and asked
for more details, and then I would have to go away and
do some more research.
MR CAVENDER: In terms of legal advice, paragraph 16 of her
statement, she says in the second line, {C2/12/4}:
"It is likely that I suggested that Mr Abdulla
should take professional advice if he was unsure about
anything as this was something I would say in every --"
A. Definitely not, sorry. No way. That is no way
suggested, about taking professional advice. She never
mentioned anything about professional advice and
I categorically and specifically state that no mention
of seeking professional advice was mentioned by her. If
I knew at the time of what I know now, I would have
definitely sought professional advice. But at the time
she didn't mention anything. No one mentioned anything
about professional advice.
In fact, going to interviews, even from suspension
and termination, it was stated not to have legal advice.
You cannot bring a lawyer, you cannot bring someone who
is a solicitor or someone from -- so this is definitely
not mentioned.
Q. Why have you got such a strong memory of this particular
point compared to all the others?
A. Again, this would have raised my eyebrows. It would
have raised a red flag in my head.
Q. Why?
A. If you are going for an interview and someone says you
should obtain legal advice, okay, about the contract or
about -- if you are unsure about anything, then
of course you will seek legal advice, wouldn't you? If
your employer or your -- or, you know, just an example,
if your employer is saying you should seek legal advice
about this contract you are signing into, you are going
to. You would be daft not to.
Q. What she says --
A. But I didn't, and then I didn't --
Q. Mr Abdulla, to be clear, what she says she would have
said was that you should take professional advice if you
were unsure about anything.
A. It's the same thing.
Q. That is not a red flag, that is just --
A. No, it is the same thing.
Q. -- being sensible, I suggest?
A. It's the same thing, to me it's the same thing. When
you mention legal advice it is the same thing. It just
raises a red flag in my mind.
Q. In terms of service, you made clear in the interview,
presumably, you were going to work in the Post Office
yourself, is that right?
A. Yes, I put that on the business plan, that I'd be
working a minimum 40 hours.
Q. Pausing there. No one suggested to you that you had to
work in the Post Office for a particular amount --
A. No, that was my choice. I was the manager. I wanted to
establish myself as the postmaster. You can't establish
yourself if you are not there. I wanted to be
successful, I wanted to learn, I wanted to improve,
increase the sales. Although the staff were very good,
very reliant, you need to be there to keep motivating
them to increase the sales. You have to make sure they
keep asking the questions, to up-sell and side-sell,
cross-sell. Because they could get lazy and not ask
questions. So you have to be there to motivate them,
and I did motivate them, and I put some incentives
in place for them. And that is why we raised the
remuneration because it was something that I was
really -- because obviously I wanted to get paid for the
hard work that I was putting in. So the only way to do
that is work hard and, you know, why would I not be
there? What would I do then?
Q. But no one required you --
A. I was actually --
Q. Can I ask the question, please. At the interview,
no one required you to say you must work a minimum of so
many hours per week, did they?
A. There is somewhere about 18 hours, which I recall.
Q. No one said to you in the interview "You have to work
a minimum of 18 hours", or any other number of hours,
did they?
A. Because I had put on the business plan that I would be
working 40 hours, I don't think it came -- there was no
point saying to me that ...
Q. Quite. Exactly.
A. 18.
Q. So why in your Particulars of Claim do you say this? If
you go to {B5.4/2/4}, your individual
Particulars of Claim.
A. Can I finish my answers as well? Because I am getting
cut off quite a bit.
Q. Go to {B5.4/2/4}. This is your individual
Particulars of Claim. You say at paragraph 11:
"The defendant required the claimant to agree to
conditions specified by the defendant at the interview
as follows:
"11.3 personal service by the claimant ... 'The
incoming subpostmaster will provide on average not less
than 18 hours personal service each week'."
A. So, yes, 11.1, conditions of appointment, yes, that is
right, that was part of the conditions, so renewing
interior lighting, National Lottery. Yes, a lot of
problems with National Lottery, that's why --
Q. Mr Abdulla, would you concentrate, please, on the
question, which is the personal service thing --
A. Sorry, it's further down.
Q. What I'm suggesting, and I think you've accepted, is
there was no requirement for you to provide personal
service. My question supplemental to that is: why have
you said in your Particulars of Claim here that that was
a condition specified by the defendant at the interview?
A. Did I mention that? No, I did not mention anything
about -- here it says:
"The incoming subpostmaster will provide on average
not less than 18 hours personal service each week."
Are you on the right section?
Q. Yes, I'm on the right section.
A. So what was the query, sorry? I didn't understand.
Q. I think you understand, Mr Abdulla.
A. No, I don't understand.
Q. You have said to me, and it is on the transcript, that
the issue of any number of hours you needing to work at
the Post Office didn't arise because you said in your
business plan you were going to work at least 40 hours
per week, and you agreed. I'm now putting to you --
A. This is something -- as I said before, I must have
picked up that there was 18 hours, which I did say
before, I am sure I said about the 40 hours, that I knew
there was something about 18 hours personal service each
week.
Q. But it was never a condition specified at the interview
that you had to provide 18 hours personal service, was
it? You accepted this once. My question now is: why
have you put it in your pleading that it was? (Pause)
A. This, again, I put 40 hours as the amount of hours
I would be working. I believed this was something
that I had read and it was relevant at the time.
Q. So you read it where?
A. I read it on one of the papers, one of the documents
that was provided.
Q. Provided when?
A. By the Post Office before --
Q. When?
A. Before interview or before the application.
Q. I am sure my learned friend will show you that if that
does exist because I have certainly not seen it.
A. I had it from somewhere, there was something -- and
I have seen it numerous times, about 18 hours.
So is it the fact that I don't need to work at all
in the Post Office?
Q. Correct.
A. So there is no stipulations.
Q. No, exactly. You can employ assistants to do the entire
work as --
A. No, I wasn't aware of that. I was sure there was some
kind of ...
Q. As I say, if there is a document you refer to, I'm sure
my learned --
A. Then who would be the subpostmaster?
Q. You would be, and you would employ assistants to do the
actual work in the branch.
A. It just doesn't register with me, I am sorry.
Q. If you go to paragraph 45 of your witness statement
{C1/4/10}, you say there:
"Although it was not shown to me at the time, I have
now seen a document headed 'Conditions of Appointment at
Post Office Charlton branch' which includes the
requirements I have referred to above, and the hours of
opening, and a requirement for me to provide not less
than 18 hours personal service each week. This document
is signed by Ms Ridge."
Do you see that?
A. The document --
Q. Can I ask the question, please --
A. No, sorry, the document you showed me before, that is
stipulations and things that I need to do, they are
conditions of employment. They are from the
Post Office. Isn't that correct? Along with making
shutters good and repainting and so on and so on, they
come from the Post Office. This is -- in this -- this
is the truth.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By "this", I think you are just
indicating your witness statement, yes?
A. Yes, that is correct, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What I want you to do, Mr Cavender,
please, can you take the witness to {D1.4/1/1} --
A. Sorry, my Lord, I am confused by the document.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That's alright. Mr Cavender is going to
take you to the document you refer to in paragraph 45.
A. Because those conditions come from the Post Office --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, I know. Just wait there
patiently. Mr Cavender is going to take you to the
document. {D1.4/1/1}. (Pause)
A. Sorry, my Lord, it is right there in section 3.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, yes, this is --
A. It's right there in front of me as part of their
conditions. It is not my conditions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. Well, what that says Mr Cavender
is going to take you to now.
MR CAVENDER: This is a document Elaine Ridge has used to
indicate the conditions of appointment that are agreed
at the interview. Do you see at the top?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And this is an internal Post Office document --
A. Sorry, is this after the interview or before?
Q. After the interview.
A. Where does it say that?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, what the document suggests
to me is that Ms Ridge has signed it after the interview
to say what you and she agreed at the interview.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And that is why Mr Cavender has taken
you to the top two lines. He is now going to take you
to the next part which I think is at item 3.
MR CAVENDER: What she does is record here for internal
purposes after the interview that you are going to
provide on average not less than 18 hours personal
service per week. And she has done that because, as you
say in the interview, you said you were going to spend
40 hours per week. Do you see? What I am suggesting to
you is that is very different from her saying it is
a requirement for you to do 18 hours per week. Do you
see the difference?
A. But that would have come from her side.
Q. This does come from her --
A. It is not from my side because --
Q. I agree. This is her checklist of --
A. This is part of the conditions of employment, is that
correct?
Q. No --
A. This is not part of the conditions of employment? Why
is the heading "Conditions of Appointment"?
Q. This is her internal checklist, we can see that from --
A. No, this says:
"Conditions of appointment are as follows ..."
Q. Yes, because what she is doing is reminding herself for
internal purposes what the specific conditions,
the opening hours, things like that, et cetera, are
going to be in the contract with you.
A. In the box, what does it say in the box? Not on number
1.
Q. Can we concentrate on the point I am trying to make,
please, Mr Abdulla, which is --
A. Sir, you are avoiding what is in the box there. It
says:
"Conditions of appointment at Post Office Charlton
branch."
That is the branch I was taking over.
Number 1, conditions of appointment --
Q. Mr Abdulla, can you --
A. Number 2, hours. Number 3:
"The incoming subpostmaster will provide on average
not less than 18 hours personal service each week."
So that is all under the box there. That is what
I see and that is where it is and that is why I assume
that is the conditions.
Q. The question is whether, as you plead, Post Office made
it a requirement for you to serve 18 hours per week.
And I think we have agreed they didn't, because you said
you were going to serve 40, so there was no debate about
Post Office requiring you to serve 18 hours. Am I still
right?
A. I put in my business plan that I would be working
40 hours. Whether that would be 40 hours in ten years'
time, I don't think so. I don't know, maybe. Five
years' time, ten years' time. So in the business plan
you put 40 hours and that is -- it might be a timeframe
of -- because my aim was to buy another Post Office, so
I would obviously not spend 40 hours in that
Post Office, I would have to spend half and half or
whatever. So --
Q. Mr Abdulla, the only reason --
A. -- that was initial, that 40 hours I would be spending
in Charlton branch for maybe the first year or so, where
I would get established, I would learn everything, I
would pick everything up. And then we would see,
because my intention was to buy another Post Office,
expand this one, you know, buy other properties. That
was my aim.
Q. Mr Abdulla, the only relevance of the 18 hours --
A. I was very ambitious.
Q. -- to anything was, if you served that amount of time,
you would be entitled to certain allowances, a
substitution allowance, if you weren't there. That is
the only relevance of it.
A. I was not aware of any allowances.
Q. Okay. Let's leave that point there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can I just check a point with you,
Mr Cavender, because I think we have gone slightly
off-piste.
At {Day4/41:20} of today's transcript you said:
"At the interview, no one required you to say you
must work a minimum of so many hours a week, did they?"
I understand Ms Ridge's signed note as suggesting
that it was agreed at the interview that there would be
at least 18 hours. Have I misunderstood that?
MR CAVENDER: Yes, I think so. Because as I said, the only
relevance, and we will see this more generally, of the
18 hours is you are then entitled to certain allowances
if you do that. There is no requirement --
A. No, allowances are not highlighted. I did not know
anything about holidays --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, Mr Abdulla, just sit there
quietly. This is a point I am exploring.
In terms of the factual case, have I misunderstood
Ms Ridge's signed note at {D1.4/1/1}, or should
I interpret the Post Office's case, as page {Day4/41:20}
of today's transcript, about what was put to Mr Abdulla
at the interview. That is all I want to know.
MR CAVENDER: The Post Office's case is that they have
internal checks after an interview to see what has been
said and how the postmaster is going to perform. So far
as service is concerned, no personal service at all is
required or ever mentioned. The only relevance of
checking whether 18 hours is going to be provided is
because you are then allowed, if they have holiday, to
have a substitute. And that is what I imagine she will
say if asked.
So if you read into the D1 document that somehow
that is a requirement that has been agreed, then that is
the wrong interpretation.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am not talking about the legal
consequences, I am just talking about the factual point
that is being put about the interview.
Am I to take the note at the moment at face value
signed by Ms Ridge, or is this something we have to wait
until we have her give evidence about, about what was
put to Mr Abdulla or agreed with him, or taken as read,
because 18 is obviously less than 40?
MR CAVENDER: It's the latter, taken as read.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Taken as read.
MR CAVENDER: Taken as read, because he said he would do 40.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Simply because obviously, and it's an
obvious point, 18 is less than 40.
MR CAVENDER: Exactly.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay.
MR CAVENDER: If we can move on, we got rather bogged down
there, to {E4/33/2}, please. At the top of that page
she records you as saying:
"Feels the partnership between Post Office and
subpostmaster benefits both businesses, may be problems
if there are any conflicts of issues."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. That is her recording something you have said.
I suggest to you what you --
A. Sorry, "may be problems if there are any ..." That is
not what I would have said, sorry. This is her notes,
this is what she is writing, and this is probably
afterwards or maybe during. It may be that she might
have assumed that from -- but it is not what I said.
Q. The point I want to put to you is a rather different
one. When you were talking about "partnership" here,
you were using it colloquially, in the sort of cuddly
sense I think that you referred to earlier --
A. I was referring to the fact that you're working
together, so you're working together to make money, and
that was both the Post Office's and my primarily --
primary goal, was to make money. Increase sales and
make money.
Q. Going to the idea of training assistants, et cetera, you
knew the training of assistants was something that you
were responsible for, am I right?
A. Training -- I have to be specific here because there was
no way I could train them on Horizon, I wasn't savvy --
I wasn't knowledgeable enough on Horizon to train
anyone.
Q. But once you had had your training you could cascade
that down in the normal way?
A. No.
Q. You were a computer champion, I believe --
A. No. As I mentioned before, you are taking that out of
context. Computer champion in that term didn't mean
that I was an IT expert, all it meant was I was relaying
information. You had a champion for various things,
they would relay information to head office. So you are
putting words where they are not supposed to be.
Because I did mention before the fact that it just meant
I was relaying information to and from head office. It
doesn't mean I was an IT expert. I have never been
an IT expert. All I can do is Word, Excel, basic
things.
But, yes, just going back ... I have lost where
I was now.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just wait, Mr Cavender will put his next
question.
MR CAVENDER: So we have seen in the summary of contract
terms I have shown you earlier today, clearly assistants
are your responsibility and your responsibility to train
them.
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. So why are you saying -- and you plead this I think at
paragraph 32 of your IPOC, I am not taking you to it,
I don't have time -- you say somehow you thought it was
Post Office's job to train assistants?
MR GREEN: My Lord, I am sorry. Before this witness gave
evidence I spoke to my learned friend, directed him
precisely to that paragraph, and explained what the
position was in relation to it and discussed that we
dealt with it in that manner, and I said "If you are
going to raise the issue, that clarification becomes
important". He said "I wasn't going to", and I left it
there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What clarification, sorry? A
clarification in-chief?
MR GREEN: No, my Lord. There was one clarification of
a point in his Particulars of Claim which he had not
addressed in his evidence-in-chief which relates to this
very paragraph.
MR CAVENDER: I am going to give him the chance to do that
now, that's why I'm taking him to it.
A. Okay, I can answer it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, all three of you, please,
just ...
Mr Green, just so I understand, you are saying you
wished to make a clarification but did not do so, is
that right?
MR GREEN: I raised an issue --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, I'm not interested in your chat,
I am asking you a specific, precise point. When you say
"clarification", are you talking about a clarification
of the evidence?
MR GREEN: No, it wasn't covered in his evidence. It was
only a pleadings point on paragraph 32.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. If it is a pleadings point we
don't need to deal with it now. You can sit down and
Mr Cavender can pursue it.
MR CAVENDER: Can I go to {B5.4/2/10}, please.
Paragraph 32. As your counsel has just said, his
understanding is you want to alter or amend the second
part of paragraph 32 which says at the moment:
"... which reflected the claimant's understanding
that it was the defendant's obligation to provide
training to assistants."
Do you see that?
A. Yes. This is --
Q. Would you like to tell me --
A. I'm trying to.
Q. -- what you would like that to say?
A. So this would be reflected -- okay, I'll start from the
beginning:
"The defendant provided training on new products
directly to the claimant's assistants ..."
Which they did. So this training -- every manager
would come in when there was a new product, we would
have leaflets to give to the customer. So it was only
not even a half an hour training session where whoever
was free, and if it wasn't busy on the tills, they would
come with myself and have the training in the back
office. So I had a five counter office. So maybe it
was two or three with me having -- just going through
what we need to sell to the customers, what we need to
say to them, and the leaflet that we had to give out,
take their details, and then someone from the
Post Office would phone them and get more information.
Because we weren't really selling, we were just taking
details off the customers so they could ring them back,
someone who knew what they were talking about.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, you really are going to have
to rein in these very long expositions, okay?
A. I am just painting a picture --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I do know that. But Mr Cavender is
going to put to you some specific questions and I would
just like you to concentrate on his questions, please.
MR CAVENDER: It is really the second part of this that your
counsel wanted to alter, where you say:
"... which reflected the claimant's understanding
that it was the defendant's obligation to provide
training to assistants."
So my question really is: what is your position --
A. Through myself.
Q. What is your position as to your obligation to provide
training to assistants?
A. Through myself, yes.
Q. You were going to do it?
A. I was going to do it, but occasionally they would --
well, most of the time the staff would be training with
myself in the back office. But if they were all busy,
then I would receive the training and I would relay it
on to the staff. So this should say just through me, so
this should -- it was really indirectly.
Q. If we move away from the products, so I have the
products point, but it is the more general point
which --
A. No, this is regarding products. It's on paragraph 32.
This is about products. It is nothing to do with
Horizon or anything because I could not train anyone on
Horizon.
Q. So you are saying 32 should be limited simply to
products, really? That is how we should read it?
A. Well, that is what it is. That is what it says there,
it's just about products.
Q. Well, no, it's:
"... which reflected the claimant's understanding
that it was the defendant's obligation to provide
training to assistants."
A. The whole paragraph is about products.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay. Mr Cavender, does that deal with
that one?
MR CAVENDER: I think it does, my Lord, yes.
Is that a convenient time for a break, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think it might be a good idea.
Mr Abdulla, you have got ten minutes. We are all
going to have a break for ten minutes. Please do not
talk to anyone about the case. Don't feel you have to
stay in the courtroom, you really don't. Go and stretch
your legs but be back in ten minutes.
Thank you all very much. Back at two minutes to
12 o'clock.
(11.51 am)
(A short break)
(12.00 pm)
MR CAVENDER: So Mr Abdulla, moving on in time then
to December 2006 when Post Office wrote to you to inform
you that your application was successful, do you
remember that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you received a letter from Post Office informing you
of that fact, am I right?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Can I take you to a copy of that letter {E4/2/1}. This
letter as you can see is in fact dated 7 April 2005 in
error. I am suggesting to you this was sent to you in
the early part of December 2006. Do you remember
receiving it then?
A. Was there another one sent with the correct date?
Q. No.
A. This was the one?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes ... (Pause)
Q. Take your time. Look at page 2 if you like {E4/2/2}.
I see you smiling?
A. Yes, I see your sarcasm.
Q. If you want to go to page 5, there are various
appendices.
A. Yes, I remember.
Q. It's 1M. Point 1:
"You will be bound by the terms of the standard
subpostmasters contract ..."
Et cetera. It is your copy. I think you had to
sign and return a copy, didn't you? And we see that
page at {E4/2/8} of this document, appendix 1M return
copy?
A. Yes, I believe -- yes, this was when I had to send my
bank details and other documents.
Q. Does that help you? Do you accept you received this in
early December 2006, this whole letter?
A. Is this -- have you shown me the whole thing?
Q. No, it goes on. It has next of kin, et cetera.
After -- look at page 8 and 9, that is the return thing
which you signed and returned, I understand. So page
{E4/2/8} and page {E4/2/9}. Then turn over to page
{E4/2/10} where you would have signed it. Then page
{E4/2/11} is a next of kin form.
A. Yes.
Q. Then page {E4/2/13} is ethnic classifications and
various other stuff. Then documents in --
A. Yes, this all look familiar, yes.
Q. Then documents in appointment pack at page {E4/2/15}, if
you look at that, please. Then go to page {E4/2/16} to
see what that contains.
So you had received these documents in early
December 2006, yes?
A. So far as I can remember, yes. Some of the pages are
familiar, yes.
Q. And we know you got them because at bundle {E4/45/1} we
see appendix 1M, the return copy of appendix 1M, and
rather oddly we see it starts at paragraph 6, do you see
that on {E4/45/1} in terms of the paragraph numbering?
A. Yes.
Q. And that reflects, if you compare it and go back to
{E4/2/8}, appendix 1M also starts idiosyncratically at
paragraph 6, do you see that?
A. Yes. Why is that?
Q. Don't worry about why that is. What I am putting to you
is that it is the same document, formatted in the same
way.
And we see from page {E4/45/2} your signature on
this document.
A. Didn't the previous document have 1 to 5 on? Didn't it
have anything before that? No?
Q. Can you answer this question, and I will take you to it
in a moment to deal with that point. At page {E4/45/2}
we see your signature?
A. That is my signature.
Q. On 11 December 2006?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is safe to assume you received at least the
appendix 1M return copy on that date?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was part of a larger document I have just shown
you at {E4/2/1}. So it is reasonably safe to assume,
I suggest to you, that you would have received all the
documents as you seem to be accepting that you would.
Is that fair?
A. It is not 100 per cent necessary that I would have
received everything that was -- that you have said. But
yes, as I said before, the pages do look familiar.
Q. And to answer your question --
A. But I can't be 100 per cent sure that I received
everything, especially the documents which were listed
on the table. I cannot be sure, because they are not
there, they are just numbers and just references.
Q. To answer your question about paragraph numbering,
I said I would go back. So {E4/2/5}, please.
A. Yes, so this is got 1 to --
Q. But this is your copy. Do you see this is the "your
copy" version?
A. Right.
Q. The "return copy" version at {E4/8/1} starts with
paragraph 6 at the top.
A. Where is number 5? That is missing.
Q. That is the idiosyncracy of the pagination. It's not
meant to. There isn't paragraphs 1 to 5 missing --
A. No. Where is section 5, paragraph 5?
Q. As I say, it --
A. It goes from 1 to 4 and then 6 to 9.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have got a page with a paragraph 5 on
but I might be looking at the wrong document.
A. Ah, here it is. That's a different document though.
MR CAVENDER: You mean {E4/2/6} has a paragraph 5 with the
opening hours et cetera?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am trying to work out which document
Mr Abdulla signed and sent back.
MR CAVENDER: He sent the one, my Lord, back at {E4/45/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: {E4/45/1} is the one he sent back.
MR CAVENDER: Page 1 and page 2, the signature being on
page 2. {E4/45/2}
A. Why would I send out --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, please, please.
That is the one of 11 December 2006.
MR CAVENDER: Correct.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But that isn't the document that was
sent as the appendix, is it? Because if you look back
to {E4/45/1}, it goes -- on that single page there is 6,
7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
MR CAVENDER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And the first page of the return copy
and the document you were putting to him I think stops
after paragraph 9. But I might be wrong.
MR CAVENDER: The one I put to him goes on --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The return copy {E4/2/8}. That page
stops, on that page, at paragraph 9, doesn't it?
MR CAVENDER: It doesn't have the opening hours.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you then go on to page {E4/2/9} ...
the content might be the same but it is a different --
MR CAVENDER: The formatting is different anyway.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay. It might not matter. So that is
the one he signed and sent back anyway,
11 December 2006.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
When you got this letter, presumably you would have
been pleased you had been appointed? Going back now to
{E4/2/1}.
A. Yes, I was very pleased.
Q. This was the first time you had seen the full contract
because so far you had only seen a summary of terms. We
have been through that this morning, haven't we?
A. As I said before, I have not received the contract,
never have. So again you are just going round the same
way and asking me the same question.
I told you if I would have seen the contract what
I would have done. I don't want to keep repeating
myself.
Q. Let's have a look at what the letter says in {E4/2/1}.
It says:
"Your appointment will be subject to:
"1. Your written acceptance of the subpostmasters
contract and other terms and conditions set out in
appendix 1M ..."
Do you see that?
A. I'll tell you the truth again, I was very pleased at
receiving this letter and that I was successful. So the
contract was -- obviously it's important, but I thought
that I would get that on a later date as it is
a modified one. Maybe it was still being modified or
whatever. But it wasn't a concern to me because I knew
they would send it anyway or I thought they would send
it anyway at a later date.
Q. Let's look at {E4/2/2} with that in mind:
"Appendix 2 lists the documents in the appointment
pack and gives full details of the actions required of
you ... In particular, the appointment pack contains a
copy of the modified subpostmasters contract, setting
out the contractual relationship with Post Office ..."
A. Yes, again --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Sorry, where are you reading from?
MR CAVENDER: {E4/2/2}, under the narrative of what was in
appendix 2.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: He.
MR CAVENDER: Now, you would have read that because this is
the first page of the letter, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You say you hadn't seen the contract at this stage, that
is your evidence. This is the first time you have seen
a copy of the contract or reference to it being
included --
A. Reference to it.
Q. If it hadn't been included, yes? In the same way as on
one of your pharmaceutical jobs, if they hadn't included
some of the medicines or --
A. Medicines and a contract is a different thing.
Q. -- you would have asked for it, wouldn't you?
A. I did at a later stage enquire about it.
Q. Now, we know you didn't ask for it at this stage --
A. Not at this stage.
Q. Then can I infer from that that it must have been there
then, because --
A. No.
Q. -- if it hadn't been you would have asked for it?
A. No. As I said before, it wasn't something that was
really important to me. I trusted the Post Office and
its dealings. I trusted the brand, the Post Office,
a nationwide institution, and I wouldn't have thought
there would be anything malicious or untoward in
the contract. So I just was waiting for it to come at
the office when I started, which I presumed it would
come at the office maybe, because as I said it was being
modified, there was maybe some things that were not
finished on it.
So it wasn't a concern to me at this stage. I was
just happy that they had accepted my application and
I was successful and I was going to be the subpostmaster
of Charlton Post Office.
Q. Mr Abdulla, appendix 2 says:
"In particular, the appointment pack contains a copy
of the modified subpostmasters contract, setting out the
contractual relationship ..."
The very thing you accepted earlier on was something
you were expecting, and here it is.
A. If I was expecting it, it doesn't mean I was expecting
it at that time. I could have expected it ... I hadn't
started yet, so there was still time for me to start.
They could have sent it at a later date, maybe a day or
two after. But again, I was just so excited, so happy
that -- it wasn't in the front of my mind. It wasn't,
okay, I need -- the contract is not there, I need to see
the contract right now, I need to do the phone calls, do
this, do this. It wasn't like that. It is just a, you
know, you are in a good place, a good feeling, and you
are not thinking about things like that.
Q. When you signed and returned appendix 1M, which we
looked at {E4/45/1}, you were signing to agreeing,
amongst others things, to be bound by the terms of the
subpostmasters contract for services at modified payment
offices, weren't you?
A. Yes, I -- the terms, that is right, but not the actual
contract.
Q. Pause there. What is the difference between the terms
and --
A. I don't know.
Q. -- the actual contract?
A. As I said, I have not had a contract like this before.
Every contract I have signed has always had the contract
and you sign the contract. So if I am bound by the
terms, I'm ... Again, I was -- I was sort of
commercially naive and I was -- I hadn't had a business
before, so I wasn't -- I was just happy that I was
accepted, you know. And then, as I say, I trusted the
Post Office to send it at later date and I trusted the
brand. You know, you don't -- with the Post Office you
associate -- you don't associate anything bad with the
Post Office.
Q. Go to {E4/45/2}, please, which is the signature page of
appendix 1M. You signed there to say:
"I, Mr Naushad Abdulla, fully understand and accept
these terms and conditions."
And you sign it.
A. I was accepting all the terms -- so it's not just about
the contract there. The contract is not even mentioned
there.
Q. Can we go back, to see if that is right, to {E4/45/1}
and go to paragraph 6 at the top, it says these --
A. Yes, it's highlighted with --
Q. -- words:
"You will be bound by the terms of the standard
subpostmasters contract for services at modified payment
offices."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So when you signed to say you understand and accept the
terms and conditions, I suggest --
A. I was willing to accept and be bound by the contract
because, as I said, I trusted the Post Office. So even
if I didn't have the contract with me, I was still happy
to be bound by the terms of the contract.
Q. So even if you were right and it wasn't in this pack,
which I don't accept for a moment, you were happy to be
bound by it on the basis that if you wanted it, you
would be sent a copy and it would be provided to you, is
that where you end up?
A. Yes, because this -- a contract -- I would have assumed
it was just a general contract to say this is how much
you would be earning, these are the products you will be
selling. A standard contract. I didn't expect it to
be -- you know, just a standard contract with standard
terms, whatever ...
Q. Standard terms. And you already had an insight, didn't
you, to what they would be because the Serv 135 document
I showed you earlier which morning had extracts from the
contract, so you knew some of the terms?
A. I read some of the terms.
Q. When you got the terms, you could have taken such legal
advice as you wanted to take upon them before signing
and returning the document at {E4/45/1}, couldn't you?
A. There was nothing here to suggest I should take any
legal advice. If the contract was there, then I would
have looked at the contract and I would have seen how
complicated and how vast it is, and all the different
clauses, then I would have spoken to someone about it
legally. But then with just -- with what was just there
in these couple of pages, I was happy not to have any
legal advice.
Q. But you are a businessman, you were setting up this
business --
A. I wasn't a businessman at this time, I was just
a salesperson, a salesman. I was not a businessman.
Q. You were setting up this business and you were taking
legal advice at the time on the purchase --
A. Legal advice regarding the purchase of a lease.
Q. Correct. And if you had wanted to, you could have asked
that or another legal adviser for legal advice on this
contract. If you had wanted to?
A. No, they were just business transfer agents -- sorry,
they were just people who deal with -- I forgot the
name, but they deal --
Q. They were solicitors, a firm of solicitors?
A. Yes, but they were just dealing with house purchases and
that sort of thing, business purchases.
Q. But you are aware solicitors have other --
A. Yes, but the ones I was dealing with were only
business -- what do you call them? I forgot what they
are called. Conveyancers or something.
Q. Did you go and visit the conveyancers --
A. No. No, I didn't go and visit them.
Q. But if you had wanted to you could have said on the
phone, "I'm interested in the detail about the lease.
I have this contract. Have you got anyone who can give
me advice on it?"
A. Again, you said I have this contract when I didn't have
the contract. So why would I suggest them to give me
legal advice on a contract when I didn't have the
contract? If I would have had the contract, again,
I don't know how many times I have to say it ...
Q. So I suggest to you if it wasn't there, Mr Abdulla, you
would have asked for it, and you have been pretty
straightforward about that. And you didn't ask for
it --
A. Yes, but I was in no rush. So I did enquire -- not at
this particular time but at a later date. Before
actual -- before taking over, before going -- being
subpostmaster I did enquire about it.
Q. You did?
A. I did.
Q. Of whom?
A. With the area manager.
Q. Who was that?
A. Christine Adams.
Q. And when do you say you did that?
A. On transfer day.
Q. Do you mention that in your witness statement?
A. It's not come up before, so it's only highlighted now.
Q. So it is not mentioned in your witness statement?
A. It wasn't an issue before.
Q. What, the fact of the contract and whether or not you
had received it at any particular time wasn't an issue
before?
A. It was just on passing, when I was signing the various
documents, there was something about the contract
and I said "I haven't received this", and she said "If
you haven't received it you will receive it. It will
come to the office", or whatever. It was just a general
passing. But it wasn't an issue and it has not been --
I have stated that I've not received the contract, but
you have only brought it up now that it is -- why didn't
you make a phone call? Why didn't you enquire about it?
So you've only brought it up now, and that is why I am
referring to it now, but I wouldn't have referred to it
before this.
Q. I suggest to you if that were true, the account you have
just given, we would have found it clearly in your
witness statement, because it would be an important
point and you must have realised that, Mr Abdulla.
A. I don't believe so, I don't think -- I think -- I
don't -- as I said, it was just enquiring in person, it
wasn't something that I was -- it was just when I was
signing the documents and it was just something
I mentioned.
Q. We are going to branch transfer day now, that's
24 January 2007. Do you remember who the Post Office
rep was who did the transfer with you? Do you know
the name of the person?
A. There was no one doing the transfer with me. There was
the area manager who was there, she was helping out with
the -- Christine Adams, she was helping out with the
audit. I was outside, I was not allowed inside where
the actual office is because obviously they were doing
their work and they were counting cash and stock. So
I was waiting outside. There was a few people there
just doing all the audits but I was outside.
I was also at the time just on the phone finalising
the lease and the payment going through to the landlord,
and that sort of thing, so I was busy doing that sort of
thing.
Q. In terms of the various documents, you signed an
acknowledgement of appointment. We see that at
{D1.4/3/1}. Do you see that? Do you remember signing
that?
A. When was this? Was it transfer day?
Q. Yes. Yes, this is on transfer day.
A. Yes, I signed a lot of documents on transfer day. There
was no time to read, no time to go through them. They
were just handed --
Q. Pause there.
A. They were just handed to me, "Just sign this", next one,
"Sign this", next one. If they'd wanted me to read them
through and go through them --
Q. Can I ask a question, please --
A. -- they would have sent them a couple of days before and
I could have gone through and read them and then on
transfer day I could have just signed them.
Q. Mr Abdulla, dealing with this particular document, if
you had wanted more time to read it before you signed
it, you could have asked for more time, couldn't you?
A. No, there was no time. It was -- everything was rushed.
We had finally done the -- they'd carried out the audit,
they'd finished the audit after the branch was closed,
I can't remember if it was closed half day or full day,
but anyway it went on until like about 6 o'clock,
7 o'clock --
Q. Mr Abdulla, this is a single page. Surely you had time
to read a single page? You would have read this single
page, wouldn't you?
A. I believe I could have even -- looking at it now, I can
just skim over it. But again, the documents were just
handed to me. This is just one of many. Other ones
were in -- like a couple of pages.
Q. Let's look at this because you were asked to sign this.
This is one of two or three documents in particular you
were asked to sign, we have seen in other cases as well.
It says:
"... agree to be bound by the terms of my
contract ..."
Pausing there. At this stage, on your case, you say
you may not have got a copy of the contract. Possibly.
You are not sure, but you say that is a possibility you
are asking the court to consider --
A. I never said it was a possibility. I said --
I categorically said that I did not receive the
contract. And signing a similar document before about
being bound by the terms of my contract, I have signed
a document similar to that, so why would I not sign this
document? Because it is the same thing. So without
seeing the contract, again I trusted the dealings with
the Post Office, and I would have signed even if -- the
day was so rushed, it was -- you didn't have any chance
to ask any questions on what you were signing and so on.
And actually this is the bit where -- on transfer
day, this is when I did mention -- when I was talking
earlier about mentioning it to Christine Adams, and this
was the time I did mention it.
Q. But I thought you didn't have any time when it was put
in front you. Now you're saying you had time to ask
questions and in fact asked a question.
A. There was limited time, there was limited --
Q. Which is it, Mr Abdulla? Is it that you had no time --
A. It was both.
Q. -- and they're put in front of you and you signed one
after another, or did you read them, discuss them and
ask questions as you are now asking the court to
believe?
A. No.
Q. Which is true?
A. No, no. It was only on this issue, because again it is
a one-page document. Other documents were two or three
pages, where you would have to go through -- just turn
the pages and sign at the last page. You don't have
time to go through them. But this was a one-page
document --
Q. Mr Abdulla, I put it to you that you are making it up as
you go along.
A. No. I did mention before that I mentioned to
Christine Adams about the contract during transfer day,
during going through the papers, and this was the stage,
and now bringing this up has highlighted that again.
I'm not making anything up.
Q. Go to {E4/51/1}, please. Another document I think you
would have been shown on transfer day. Do you remember
seeing this highlighting certain sections of your
contract?
A. Is this something I was handed on transfer day to sign?
Q. Yes.
A. Again I wouldn't have had time to go through all of
that.
Q. It's a three-page document --
A. It doesn't matter --
Q. We see your signature at {E4/51/3} --
A. That's what I'm saying, there were pages like that. It
was just -- the last page was shown to you to sign and
you just sign it. You don't go through the pages, you
just -- she just highlighted where I need to sign and
then I just signed it.
Q. Can I be clear who you say was at transfer day.
A. I can only remember Christine Adams.
Q. Look at paragraph 55 of your witness statement, please.
{C1/4/11}
A. Yes.
Q. Read 55 to yourself. (Pause)
Have you read it?
A. Yes.
Q. You say that Ms Stevens attended and assisted with the
audit, no mention --
A. Yes, Christine Adams changed to Christine Stevens, or
the other way around, because she must have got married.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It says "Stevens" on the signed
appointment anyway.
A. It's the same person.
MR CAVENDER: I don't believe that is true, Mr Abdulla. My
instructions are they are not the same person.
A. I think you need to do your research then because that
is definitely true. Christine Stevens is
Christine Adams.
Q. Going back to {E4/51/1} and this document, you would
have had a chance to read this, because you wouldn't
sign something that is untrue, would you, Mr Abdulla?
And you do say at {E4/51/3}:
"I, Naushad Abdulla, hereby acknowledge that I have
read and understood these extracts."
Do you see that?
A. Again, they were just handed to me and just told me to
sign, where to sign. It wasn't -- I couldn't read
anything through. The only one I read was because it
was one page, and it was just a few lines about
the contract, that was highlighted, and that is where
I made an enquiry about the contract.
Q. Is the declaration made here then true or untrue, the
one you have signed on the page I have just shown you?
A. Sorry, what --
Q. "I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understood
these extracts."
Was that declaration you made and signed true or
untrue?
A. It depends how you look at it. At the time I didn't
have time to read it, so you can take what you will from
that. I didn't have time to read it, I just signed it.
Q. These were extracts from your contract, we see that at
{E4/51/1} at the top:
"Dear subpostmaster.
"... I would like to draw your attention to extracts
from your Contract."
Capital C. That was fine with you because of course
you had already got a copy of your contract, hadn't you?
A. Oh my God.
Do I need to answer that again?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, if it is the same answer as
before, why don't you just say --
A. It is the same answer, my Lord.
MR CAVENDER: The third document you certainly signed on
that day is at {E4/54/1}, something called an ARS 110.
Do you remember looking at that? You have signed it,
yes? The incoming postmaster signature.
A. Yes, I signed it. That is my signature.
Q. What this does is indicate the handing over, I suggest
to you, of the five volumes you see there, together with
the various Horizon guides.
A. Okay, let me explain. The volumes were in a big -- a
lever-arch file, maybe one or two depending on the size
of the volumes. So it wasn't like you could go through
each individual manual and, you know, check that there.
So what would have happened was they would have just
looked to make sure that they were in that file and then
I would have signed it.
So it is not something that you would go through
individually and go through each one, that is how it
looks like, but it is not like that. Because obviously
you are just having -- just operating on Horizon how to
sell a postal order, fishing licences and so on and so
on. So again, as I said, there is no time to go through
all that. You are just signing and carrying on with the
next document.
Q. Can we go back to the acknowledgement of appointment
{D1.4/3/1}. When you read in the middle of the page
there:
"... and agree to be bound by the terms of my
contract and by the rules contained in the book of rules
and the instructions contained in those postal
instructions issued to me."
You understood at the time that that included the
documents referred to --
A. No.
Q. -- in ARS 110 --
A. No. Those are the training manuals. Those are, sorry,
not training manuals, they are product manuals.
Q. What are?
A. They are how to actually sell a fishing licence, how to
enter it on Horizon. So you press that button for
a fishing licence for six months or that one for 12
months. Its nothing to do with any contractual issues.
Q. Mr Abdulla, what I suggest is:
"... the book of rules and instructions contained in
those postal instructions issued to me."
And your acknowledgement of appointment --
A. No, I don't think that it is referring to that.
Q. -- refers to those things listed in bundle {E4/54/1}.
A. I don't believe it refers to that. Even if it did, what
is the point of the argument? I don't understand. That
says "Counters Operation Manuals". If you go back,
where does it mention counters operation manuals?
Q. In terms of your expectations or the reasonable
expectations of --
A. Sorry, have we finished with that?
Q. Yes. It's your case, as I understand it, that you say
the contract was formed on branch transfer day. Take it
from me that that is your case.
A. Sorry, can you repeat that?
Q. It is your case that the contract between you and
Post Office was formed on branch transfer day.
A. What do you mean by contract?
Q. The contractual relationship was formed on that day.
Post Office say it was earlier --
A. That is the day I took over the Post Office, yes.
Q. Yes, that is as I understand your case.
My Lord, for your reference, it's paragraph 62 of
the IPOC.
Post Office say it was an earlier stage, namely,
when you signed the appointment letter we have seen you
signing. Can I just investigate what you accept that
the reasonable expectations of somebody in your position
at that time would have been. Firstly, you would have
expected that the Horizon system you were to use would
be a reasonably reliable IT system?
A. Yes, that is the assumption from -- from -- yes, I was
made to believe that it was a reliable and trustworthy
system because it was used by the Post Office for many
years. So I had no issues to doubt it when I started or
before I started.
Q. It would also be your expectation that you would be
provided with any necessary training on its use?
A. Sorry, I didn't catch --
Q. That you would be provided with any necessary training
on its use, on Horizon's use?
A. Yes. What is the question?
Q. That someone in your position at the time you formed the
contractual relationship, a reasonable person in your
position would have, as part of the background, thought
that necessary training on Horizon would be provided to
you?
A. Yes, I assume so, yes.
Q. Similarly, such a person would also have thought that
there would be a reasonable Helpline to assist you with
any difficulties going forwards?
A. Yes, I would have hoped for and I would have assumed
that there would be necessary support, not just the
Helpline, but many other avenues of support. But it was
limited.
Q. Can we move on then, if we can, into a different subject
which is deficit and cause of deficits or issues in your
branch. You deal with this at paragraph 88 and
following. I'm not going to go through this in huge
detail. But paragraph 88 starts at {C1/4/17}. In
particular, and you have read your witness statement,
you query a range of transaction corrections in
particular, and suggest that there is some possible
fault with Horizon. Also you have a criticism about
banks and cheques, broadly?
A. Yes. Do you want me to go in order?
Q. No, I --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think, Mr Abdulla, just wait, and
Mr Cavender will put probably bite-sized questions to
you.
MR CAVENDER: Exactly, I am just warming you up to the area.
We are talking about this now.
I firstly have to make clear to you that Post Office
don't accept what you say in any of those paragraphs,
and that would be the subject of tests in a future
trial. But one of the things that you do at
paragraph 90, just turn that up {C1/4/17}, is you look
at the transaction correction data disclosed and you go
through it and you have your potted views on those
transaction corrections.
A. That is right.
Q. Can we establish one thing first with you. You accept
that you don't have to accept transaction corrections,
do you? They're suggested to you --
A. You have to accept one way or another. You have to
accept it straightaway and pay in the cash if it is
a deficit, or you accept it centrally, and then by
branch transfer day you have to make good the loss, or
whether it is a surplus or whether it is a loss, before
you can roll over to the next trading period. So you
have to accept it. So your theory was wrong.
Q. Let's go to the manual, shall we, because that isn't
true. As I think you must realise, you can either
accept it, as you say, and if an amount needs to be
paid, pay, or you settle it centrally and dispute it?
A. There are two options. You accept it straightaway or
you accept it centrally, and then you have to accept it
in the end -- when it's a branch trading period you have
to accept it anyway because you can't roll over to the
next period, you cannot open your office until that has
been rolled over. So the next day you would not be able
to open the office if it is not rolled over.
Q. I suggest that is not right and I can show you the
manual on this. It's at --
A. I think I know what I am talking about.
Q. {F4/21/11}. Is this the manual you would have been
familiar with? If you go to {F4/21/1}, that is the
contents page. Just look at that first. This is
something you had in your branch, is it? It dates from
2006.
A. No, what I used to use was just a double-sided laminated
sheet of paper to do my balancing. I didn't have this.
Q. You are saying you didn't have it. It wasn't in
the branch, you don't think?
A. It wasn't at the branch when I took over, no.
MR CAVENDER: Can I just check one thing before we go on ...
MR GREEN: My Lord, can I just note a concern about the
foundation for the way that line of questioning was put,
given that 46.1 of the Post Office's own Defence
expressly says it is admitted that there is no option
within Horizon to dispute a shortfall. I didn't object
because I didn't want to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have the reference. Thank you very
much.
MR GREEN: I am most grateful. (Pause)
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, my learned friend raised a pleading
point. If we go to paragraph 39 of the general Defence.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is this the Generic Defence?
MR CAVENDER: Indeed. It's at {B3/2/13}, paragraph 39.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Sorry?
MR CAVENDER: {B3/2/13}, paragraph 39.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just give me one second. I wasn't
necessarily going to require you to deal with the
pleading point now unless you wanted to.
MR CAVENDER: It is a convenient place for the witness,
actually.
Can you cast your eye over, please, paragraph 39,
headed "Transaction Corrections". Do you have that on
screen?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have you seen this document before,
Mr Abdulla? You might not have done. It is a pleading
in the litigation.
A. No.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Just read the whole -- from
39, "Transaction Corrections", just read that page, and
then Mr Cavender is probably going to ask you a question
or two. (Pause)
A. Yes, that is fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Go over the page to subparagraph (6)
{B3/2/14}:
"If the subpostmaster wishes to query or dispute the
transaction correction, he or she should contact the
person identified in the transaction correction
notification."
Et cetera. So --
A. This is for disputing, it is not to accept a transaction
correction.
Q. Yes --
A. That is totally different.
Q. But what you do, don't you, if you don't want to accept
a transaction correction, you settle it centrally and
then ring to dispute it?
A. You dispute it if you want to dispute it.
Q. Yes.
A. But there is not an option when you are accepting it.
So you accept it straightaway or you accept it
centrally. There is not an option of accepting
centrally and disputing.
Q. No, you don't accept it centrally, you settle it
centrally --
A. That is what I mean.
Q. You move it in, in order to allow you to roll over into
the next period. Yes? So you settle it centrally,
don't accept it, and you then ring to dispute it --
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. Can I finish? Just to put to you what I suggest the
system is. Then that enables you to roll over?
A. No. You need to accept it centrally. You settle it
centrally. What that really means is you are accepting
it centrally. It's the same thing --
Q. I suggest to you it is not --
A. So when you accept it centrally --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just hold on. I want to hear the
explanation. You explain your choices.
A. Okay. So say a transaction correction pops up, you have
two options, two boxes. So you have either one is to
accept it now straightaway and put whatever it is, put
the money in or take the money out, whatever, and then
the other box says "settle centrally".
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What does that mean?
A. What that does, it saves that shortage or loss or
whatever, it saves it in -- I don't know how it works
but it saves it somewhere and then, when the branch
transfer period comes around at the end of the month, so
that -- that shows up. So even if you forget about it,
before you roll over to the next branch trading period
for the next day, that will pop up and it will not go
away until you accept it there and then; you have to put
the money in there and then if it is a loss or take the
money out, whatever it is, you have to make good that
situation before you actually roll -- you don't dispute
it at that time. You cannot because -- if you want, you
can but then you will be there -- you ideally should
dispute it as soon as you get the transaction
correction. But at that stage you have to accept it and
then roll over to the next trading period, so you can
open the next day.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Whatever your understanding, you understood
that you could dispute it? That you had to do something
to facilitate the rollover, yes? Whatever that thing
was --
A. Why would you --
Q. Can I finish? Whatever that thing was that would -- it
would effect a rollover, so you have a zero balance in
the next trading period. But the issues over the
transaction -- any you had would still be live and be
for you able to contest. You understood that much,
didn't you?
A. Sorry, can you just repeat that?
Q. We are disagreeing about whether you had to accept or
settle and what settle meant. Just leave that aside.
You understood that, by following the procedure we have
talked about, about moving into the suspense account,
yes --
A. It is not really a suspense account.
Q. -- whether it is accepting or settling centrally,
whatever that is, that would allow you to do two things:
one, roll over and go to zero in the new trading period,
yes?
A. If you have -- if you have dealt with that matter.
Q. You have dealt with it. But you have "settled" it in
a way which keeps open your possibility of arguing about
it?
A. No, no. Even if it is open, even if it is in dispute,
you cannot roll over until you have sorted it out before
branch transfer period.
Q. I suggest you are wrong about that.
A. No, I suggest I am right.
Q. Moving on then, 102, {C1/4/20}. You say:
"As far as I recall there is no process in Horizon
which required proof that I was the person accepting the
transaction correction."
Do you see that?
A. Sorry, can we just go back? If you are disputing it, it
will still be under dispute but you still have to sort
it out at that time. So that is when you get -- in
the next trading period you could get a transaction
correction to correct that correction. To nullify that.
So it is still in dispute. Or it may not be in dispute
but a transaction correction could come to reverse that
correction on the next trading period. But, to roll
over, you have to accept that correction, even though it
is in dispute. That is another matter and they are
dealing with that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. Thank you.
MR CAVENDER: But the simple point is, Mr Abdulla, you knew
on that that there is no particular pressure on you to
accept something you didn't want to accept simply
because you were coming up to a rollover period.
Because you settle it centrally and dispute it.
A. No, you -- I just explained it to you. You have to
accept it whether you like it or not. Whether you -- it
is still in dispute if you have disputed it. Whether
you agree with it or not, you have to accept it. It is
not that you have a choice. On transfer rollover period
you have to accept it.
Q. Let's move on then. I was dealing with paragraph 102
and whether you could know whether you or an assistant
accepted a transaction correction. Presumably you could
only do that if you shared your ID and password with
assistants. Because every assistant or postmaster has
their own ID, don't they, which they sign in with?
A. Yes, I was not -- I couldn't remember this point,
whether it would pop up on all the screens when you get
a transaction correction or whether it would just pop up
on my screen. So if it would pop up on everyone's
screen, then obviously anyone else could accept it. But
I can't -- that is one of the things I can't remember.
But during the audit it came up and someone accepted it
on my behalf, when I wasn't there. I was on holiday
when the audit took place leading to my suspension.
But, yes, this is a point which I wasn't sure of.
Q. But I am right as well, am I not, that you can tell who
is on Horizon at any given moment by their password and
ID? Retrospectively you can say, well, it was assistant
X or Y unless you have happened to tell them what your
ID or password was. Which I guess you wouldn't do.
A. No, you wouldn't know -- if that was the case and it
popped up on every screen, you wouldn't know who
accepted it until later when -- actually I don't know
how -- maybe the code of their terminal would show up
afterwards where they have accepted it. But
I don't know how it would show who has accepted it if it
was the case.
Q. I suggest it would. All transactions -- when you use
Horizon, you put in your ID and your password and that
is peculiar to that person. The only thing it does on
that screen is record it.
A. But how would I know -- if someone is on another till,
how would I know they have accepted it? Or if I am away
from my till and I have not seen the pop-up, how
would I know that other person has accepted it there and
then?
Q. Moving on, one of the other problems you talk about,
paragraph 129, was investigating {C1/4/25} problems with
cheques. Do you see that?
A. Yes, there were a lot of problems with cheques. The
whole system is flawed. My Lord, if someone -- we have
a cut-off time about quarter to five every day. Now,
the cheques -- we do the dailies on individual basis, so
we closed one till and -- I would go first and then it
would go in order. So I would do my dailies, get the
daily -- the Giros and so on and put them in my bundle
and then take them to the back office, get ready for the
back office work that I need to do. So the next person,
John Speller, he would do his one, close his counter.
It would only take five minutes, and then he would do
his and then give them to me at the back office and so
on and so on. There was Mr P, Mr Shah and Poppy at the
end.
So they would take turns in doing that. When I had
all the -- so I was doing the back office stuff. The
next person, John, would open. He would have maybe
another customer come in with a Giro cheque or any type
of cheque. Now, that cut-off time is done. But in
Horizon it still shows for that day. So now I have sent
off the dailies when the postman comes; I give him all
the daily paperwork to -- for him to go to Chesterfield
at head office. What would happen is this -- so a Giro
cheque would come in afterwards. It is registered on
that day but it would go out the next day. Or maybe, if
it is a weekend, it would go out in a couple of days.
What would happen is, just because it is late, they
say -- a transaction correction comes in that cheques
are missing. They have gone lost. I have kept them.
It is not in my name. I can't do anything with them.
I can't benefit from them. So just because they are
late a couple of days I get a transaction correction to
say that cheques have gone missing.
So then, when they do receive them after a couple --
a day or two later, and then it goes through the process
and then they find out, yes, okay, we've got the cheques
and then I get a reversing transaction correction to say
the cheques have turned up. Surely a ten-year old can
come up with a better system than that to say: okay, why
don't we wait, have some kind of system where we receive
the cheques and not send out transaction corrections
willy-nilly, and a better system could be made up. It
is just -- you are just wasting transaction corrections
where I need to put money in and then take money out,
keep putting money in and taking money out. It just
doesn't make sense.
Q. Can I refer you to paragraph 129 of your witness
statement, please {C1/4/26}. You say there:
"It is very difficult to investigate any problems
with cheques ..."
You say:
"Once cheques were sent off to Post Office I did not
have any records in the branch to review so I was
dependent on Post Office from then on."
You must have known that it was in Post Office's
manual that you are required to keep the remittance out
slip for your cheques in branch for a period of two
years?
A. I am talking about the individual cheques which were
sent out, as I said, after the cut-off time. They would
be going out for the next day. So the cheques --
Q. The remittance out slip though, you say you would have
no information. Surely you would have kept for two
years the remittance out slip --
A. There was a docket, where we put on top of the cheques,
and there would be a copy -- there would be my copy of
that.
Q. You knew there was a requirement in the instructions, it
is {F4/22/15} as it happens, that you keep the
remittance out slip for your cheques in your branch for
two years and:
"Destroy the Horizon counter daily cheques listing
report."
Is the instruction. Do you see that on the second
box from the top?
A. That's fine. I kept a copy. I'm not disputing that.
I am disputing the cheques that have gone missing. How
do I know which cheques have gone missing? Because when
they go out the next day, they are bundled with the next
day cheques. They are all mixed together. So the ones
that are from yesterday, if you like, I don't keep them
separate. There is not a separate docket for them.
There is not a separate envelope or anything. It is
just all together. That is what I am referring to.
Obviously you keep a copy of the docket, the one you
send and the one -- the back slip.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can I just check something, Mr Abdulla,
so I understand. I assume the remittance out slip just
has the total of the value of all of the cheques?
A. That is correct.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is right.
A. That is correct, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Maybe we can produce a copy of
a pro forma remittance.
MR CAVENDER: Very well. So moving on from that to the
audit on 6 April 2009. Do you remember that?
A. How could I forget.
Q. I thought you might say. That is {E4/67/1} --
A. Actually I don't remember that because I was on holiday
in Dubai and I found out through a phone call from my
father. Obviously it ruined the holiday, and I thought
it was a joke in the beginning but, you know, it was
a sick joke if it was.
Q. I am not sure it is a joke, is it, if you have
a shortfall --
A. But -- if you let me continue -- yes, so I don't
remember the day as such as what happened in
the Post Office because I wasn't there, and so -- and
knew the dates I was going away and they still carried
out an audit when I wasn't there, which I believe that
is very unfair because I didn't have -- I gave the dates
to the Post Office; these are the dates I am going away.
I don't find that fair that they would carry out
an audit when I'm not in the country.
Q. Mr Abdulla, do you find a total shortage of £4,900-odd
in the branch that you are responsible for a joke?
A. I'm not saying it was a joke -- I am saying someone,
like a friend of mine or something, would have played
a sick joke, like saying things like that. It is
a matter of saying -- it's a figure of speech that
I thought it was a joke, because it was a shock.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You mean when you got the phone call?
A. That is right, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I see.
MR CAVENDER: When we look at the -- what we are looking at
is the audit report here, just for an overview. You
have a difference in cash of £4,300-odd, you have
a difference in stock of £360, postage of £151, foreign
currency of some £9 and some £20 under "other". So
quite a few different areas of discrepancies, is that
fair?
A. This was a five counter main office, my Lord, with
regularly having over £100,000 to £150,000 in cash in
a walk-in safe, so it wasn't a small safe, it was
a walk-in safe. So a considerable amount of money and
stock in total. So just to give you the background, and
£4,393, it is a lot of money, yes, but in context of the
overall office, obviously it is not as significant as it
looks on this page.
Q. Because what you were telling Post Office in your
accounting is that you had £4,900 more than in fact you
did, in effect?
A. No, I didn't carry out this audit so I was not saying
anything here. I wasn't even in the country.
Q. What you had been doing in the previous months on
rollover is signing a certification, wasn't it, in
the form -- I can show you. It is at {F4/21/46}. At
the top there. If we can zoom into the box at the top.
A. No, this is from a manual. It is not the actual thing
that you sign. It is not the document --
Q. It is the wording though:
"I certify the content of this balancing and trading
statement is an accurate reflection of cash and stock at
this branch."
You would have signed that every month, wouldn't
you?
A. Yes. On branch transfer day, the TP --
Q. Not branch transfer. On balancing day?
A. No, we do a balancing every week, which is the
mini-balance, it is called the BP, the balancing period.
Then you have -- this you sign on a monthly basis, on
a TP, a trading -- when the trading period ends for that
month.
Q. I understand. You personally signed that every month,
did you not?
A. I did.
Q. So when we go then to bundle {E4/82/1}, which is the
notes of the interview you had when this discrepancy was
investigated really, at this interview on 13 April. Do
you see that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. There is a reference in the first couple of lines to the
audit and the loss, and it says:
"Also at the time of the audit an undated personal
cheque for £2,500 was found in stock unit AA --"
A. Sorry, where is that?
Q. It is at the top. The top few lines. "Introduction":
"... and the mutilated notes were overstated by the
same amount."
Pausing there --
A. So these are from the interview notes from the
Post Office?
Q. Indeed.
A. Okay.
Q. It says that you have accepted transaction corrections
and, in doing so, indicated that you had made this
amount good when in fact you did not.
A. Yes, I --
Q. Can I finish --
A. -- in the beginning --
Q. "This is misuse of Post Office funds and false
accounting."
So that was what was being alleged against you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on a second. This is what we are
going to do. We are going to have a break now.
Mr Abdulla, you deal with your interview, et cetera in
your witness statement. I see there is a hard copy in
front of you.
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We are going to break for an hour. Come
back in at about 1.45 pm or 1.50 pm and just refresh
your memory of what you say in your witness statement
about this.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Then Mr Cavender is going to re-put that
last question to you after you have had a chance to look
at your witness statement, but also read what is on that
screen. So the Opus screen will stay open.
A. I am aware of this. It is not a problem for me.
MR GREEN: My Lord, could I just raise one issue, which is
I think my learned friend may have to consider whether
the counterclaim proceedings which are pleaded generally
are proceedings for the recovery of property as against
this individual claimant. Because it has a bearing on
whether any warning has to be given before certain types
of question are put. Which may be why your Lordship ...
MR JUSTICE FRASER: One of the things I am going to do over
the short adjournment is remind myself of the last two
minutes of the transcript.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, if you are going to do that, if you
read the notes, in particular these notes up to -- it's
really page --
A. Sorry, are you talking to me?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, Mr Abdulla.
MR CAVENDER: Up to page 5 or 6, my Lord, you will see what
was said at this interview and you will see the line of
questioning.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So I need to look at {E4/82/1} to
{E4/82/6} did you say?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, yes.
MR GREEN: Would your Lordship be assisted by having a copy
of the relevant provision of the Civil Evidence Act?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, I would.
Mr Abdulla, so that is what is going to happen. So
you are going to lose ten or fifteen minutes of the one
hour break but I think that is probably worth it.
A. No problem.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Don't talk about the case, please.
This is a question for Opus: I am assuming I can get
on the non-courtroom specific server using my log in
details in my room without logging out here? Through
the web? Alright. Mr Cavender, anything else?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Anything else?
MR GREEN: No, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. 2 o'clock.
(1.05 pm)
(The short adjournment)
(2.00 pm)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The only thing I was unable to do was
just revisit the transcript for about a page, because
although on Opus there is a Day 4, it is basically just
a blank slot.
I'm not sure that that is necessary, it is just one
of the things I said I was going to do which I have been
unable to do.
Mr Cavender, before you resume there are two things
I need to deal with. The first is, how much detail are
you going to go into on this?
MR CAVENDER: Not a huge amount, I am just going to -- you
have read the first six pages of the interview, I am
going to take him through that and ask him for his
explanations in the same way.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR CAVENDER: And obviously it goes to having managed the
Post Office and of course to credibility and honesty,
I suppose.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. It seems to me I ought to
give the witness a warning, which he is entitled to
under the Civil Evidence Act. I am just going to
explain to him. At the end of that warning, if either
of you think there is any deficiency in the warning then
please tell me, particularly you, Mr Green, because
you're acting.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, before you do that, can I raise one
point. This witness has already put his credibility in
issue. If you go to the transcript which you can see
now, and go to page 32, line 14 --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, I have a note of that already, but
I will go back to it.
MR CAVENDER: As I understand, if someone puts their
credibility in issue and says they are honest in that
way, then the privilege against self-incrimination may
well not be available to them unless they want to
withdraw statements about their honesty.
Can I remind you what the witness said?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on one second. As far as the Act
is concerned, it is not contingent on their credibility
not being in issue.
MR CAVENDER: No, quite. But in terms of whether he is
taken to have waived and put his own honesty in issue --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, whether he has put his honesty in
issue or not, that is obviously a point that will have
certain consequences. And if the privilege is invoked,
which it hasn't yet been, that might also have some
consequences. But in terms of the entitlement to the
warning --
MR CAVENDER: Absolutely right, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, it is both a duty and a right --
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: -- to have the warning.
MR CAVENDER: Quite. I was just making that point, there is
that wrinkle.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Subsequent wrinkles will have to be
dealt with afterwards, but it seems to me the important
thing now is to deal with the warning.
MR CAVENDER: I agree.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And Mr Green, on the basis that, apart
from all of the other claimants, you are acting for
Mr Abdulla.
MR GREEN: Indeed.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is also going to be very important,
Mr Cavender, if you do undertake the exercise which you
have said you're going to do, that you do it in
self-contained questions, rather than any slightly
longer rolled-up questions.
MR CAVENDER: Quite.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, all of that may or may not
make sense to you but I am just going to explain the
background to the situation.
There is an Act called the Civil Evidence Act 1968
which says that any witness or any person who is in
legal proceedings that are not criminal proceedings is
entitled to refuse to answer a question if they think
that to do so would tend to expose them to proceedings
for a criminal offence or recovery of a penalty.
You have re-read your witness statement in respect
of your interview with the Post Office, and you have
I think also looked at least at the first page of the
interview notes, and you know what the interview that
the Post Office had with you concerned?
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And you know, because Mr Cavender read
it out to you just before lunch before I stopped
everything, that part of the subject of the interview
was misuse of Post Office funds and false accounting.
Because of the nature of those potential offences,
I am going to give you a warning. Well, I'm not going
to give you a warning, I am going to remind you of the
ability, when Mr Cavender asks any of these questions,
you can refuse to answer them if you want to.
A. Okay, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Does all of that make sense? Have I put
that in sensible language and you are happy you have
understood?
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, that seems to me to be
adequate.
Right, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Mr Abdulla, do you remember having this
interview, which should be at {E4/28/1}. I think you
were accompanied by Mr Darvill from the NFSP, is that
right?
A. That is correct.
Q. You were asked questions about the consequences flowing
from the audit on 6 April 2009, is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. What you were asked about by Ms Ridge, if we go to
{E4/82/3}, on behalf of Post Office, you were asked
about the unusable notes line:
"... AA stock on the date of audit ..."
Yes? We see that at paragraph 31. Do you see that?
A. Yes. My Lord, this time I was really vulnerable.
I was -- I was in shock at the whole system. I accepted
things on this interview that, looking back, I shouldn't
have, and I should have had some legal advice. All
I wanted to do was pay the money that I owed, allegedly
owed, and then be reinstated, which was the
understanding from the previous audit that had taken
place in my branch.
So I was accepting everything, just -- just in
the end thinking I would pay the money and then I would
be reinstated. So I was really vulnerable and it was --
I was just really at a low point at that time. I was,
you know -- just to make that clear.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: By way of background, I should perhaps
therefore go to {E4/82/1}, the first page, it's
a summary, to remind you at the time of the audit they
found an undated personal cheque from you in the sum of
£2,500, do you accept that?
A. I do accept that. But I do not believe there is any
wrongdoing in this. The reason being this was advised
to me by one of my staff who is very experienced, and
they said this was a common practice with the previous
subpostmaster. So what would happen is rather than, as
we discussed before, where you have transaction
corrections come in and then the ones to correct those
transaction corrections, so you're putting money in,
money out all the time. But initially I used to put the
money in straightaway at the branch trading period. In
the last six months that is when things changed
and I started adopting this -- adopting this situation
here, where I would put a cheque in to cover the loss in
the whole of the office, if you like.
So this personal cheque, yes, I remember this, and
the amount of £2,500 was because I had done a balance
for the office before going on holiday -- or a couple of
days before holiday, or I think it was the last trading
period. So that cheque was not in for a long time. But
there were previous cheques where I would put them and
then rip them up, and so on. But this was the latest
loss. And I believe that I was doing the right thing
because it was an adopted practice in the branch before.
I don't believe I did any wrongdoing. The cheque could
have been easily cashed, I had enough funds in my bank
account to have that cheque cashed. I had signed it.
The only thing, it was -- I think it was undated, that
must have been an error on my part, but the cheques were
normally dated and signed in the name Post Office
Limited, so the Post Office could ...
In any incident, often audit, as happened, what
I assumed is that cheque would cover and they would --
that would cover the losses and they could just cash
that cheque and everything would be fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: If that was true, just take that at face
value, and you have been doing this for six months, why
were none of the cheques, say, for the previous six
months entered into Horizon, entered into the system?
A. Because there was no need.
Q. But there was a need, it was Post Office's money, you
had been overstating the mutilated cash by the same
amount as the cheque, am I right?
A. No, the mutilated -- I don't know why they are the same
figure, or maybe they are a figure similar to that, but
the mutilated notes had nothing to do with that cheque.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think you have been asked about
the mutilated notes yet but I might be wrong.
MR CAVENDER: You haven't but you will be now.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Put the previous question because
I would be interested in the answer.
MR CAVENDER: Which previous question, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The one where you said:
"... it was Post Office's money, you had been
overstating the mutilated cash ..."
That question.
MR CAVENDER: Yes. You had been overstating whichever,
because we don't have all the records, certainly at the
date of the audit you had overstated the mutilated cash
by £2,500 --
A. Mutilated cash means mutilated notes, okay?
Q. Exactly.
A. Yes, as I was saying, the mutilated notes had nothing to
do with the cash, they were a separate entity which
needed to be sent back to head office, but they were
part of the total loss.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By "mutilated notes", are they bank
notes that have been torn and --
A. That is correct, my Lord, yes.
MR CAVENDER: Pause there. Are you saying then at the time
of the audit on 6 April 2009 you had in your branch
£2,500 worth of mutilated notes?
A. No, I am not saying that.
Q. Then what are you saying in relation to the mutilated
notes?
A. I am saying the mutilated notes were part of the overall
amount of the cheque. So I believe -- I don't know how
the mutilated notes were so high because it says they
were overstated by the same amount. I don't agree with
that because ...
Q. The mutilated notes were overstated by £2,500, yes? The
audit tells us that. And we know your cheque was for
the same amount. Do you disagree with either of those
statements?
A. Okay, I can see a reason for this. The mutilated notes
could have been as an office as a whole. So there might
have been more coming in afterwards, after I had done
the balance at the trading period, I don't know. That
is one reason why it could be that high.
Q. Go to bundle {E4/82/3}, the next page in these notes,
and see what you said during the interview.
You were asked at paragraph 31:
"Right so in AA stock on the date of audit right
there was an amount on the unusable notes line, what can
you tell me about that?"
You reply:
"Yeah basically I covered, I was covering losses
there, it wasn't transaction corrections altogether it
was just basic losses on foreign currency and so on."
A. Yes, so -- that is exactly right. So it wasn't covering
the losses all together, so it wasn't the transaction
corrections all together. So it was transaction
corrections and basic losses on foreign currency, which
is not mutilated notes, so foreign currency is different
to mutilated notes. So again there was a loss on
foreign currency which I was covering by that cheque, as
well as mutilated notes, as well as the transaction
corrections that had come in for that trading period.
Q. What it's saying here I suggest to you is very clear,
and what happened was you were increasing your cash,
your mutilated notes, to make the system balance, and
then what you did is put a cheque, undated cheque in
the till in case someone came along, like Post Office,
and queried it. That is what you were doing.
A. No, I don't agree with that.
Q. And you knew you were doing it.
A. No. As is stated clearly here, the mutilated notes were
part of the total loss of the office, and in the last
branch trading period the loss was around £2,500 which
I covered with that cheque. So that covered all losses
including mutilated notes, foreign currency, any
transaction corrections that were at that time present,
a lot of losses from the lottery as well. So everything
was covered in that amount.
Q. We see at paragraph 34 -- or just to cover off on that
and carry on, you were overstating the mutilated notes
to disguise the shortfall?
A. No.
Q. You had been doing this for some months. If we go to
paragraph 34 on page {E4/82/3}, your answer when asked
when are these losses from:
"Just last few months, 2 or 3 months ..."
Pausing there, you said to my Lord a moment ago that
in fact it was for six months, is that right?
A. These -- the losses would be on a monthly basis, so
a maximum adopted there is a maximum six months
before -- of putting the cheque in was six months before
my -- sorry, my suspension.
Q. Pause there for me. So you put a new cheque in on
rollover every month to cover losses?
A. Correct.
Q. But on no occasion did you put that cheque through the
Horizon system and date it, did you?
A. It was dated, but I was waiting for transaction
corrections to come in to ... What would happen is once
you roll over, there would still be transaction
corrections coming in after trading period to counteract
the corrections that were made before. So it wasn't
worth me keep doing, you know, putting the cash in,
sometimes it would be for thousands and I would have to
go to the bank and take out thousands and so on. So it
would be easier, and I believe it is a common practice,
to just write a cheque out in cash and put that into the
till to cover any losses. This was all due --
Q. Pause there --
A. This was all due to a reliable, experienced staff member
suggesting that, because he saw me taking money out and
putting money in all the time, and it -- it is just --
you do that for one and a half years, that is fine, and
then you just -- because the losses were not actual
losses, they were just transaction corrections and they
were going to be corrected, which I hoped anyway they
would be corrected. So, you know, again it is a flawed
system where you just need to keep taking money out and
then putting money in again.
So this was suggested to me and I adopted it in good
faith, thinking that I was doing the right thing, and
I believe -- I still believe I did the right thing.
I had no malicious intent, I had no intent -- why would
I jeopardise my whole livelihood for £3,000, £4,000? It
doesn't make sense.
Q. Please go to --
A. £120,000 salary, remuneration, and I would jeopardise
that for ...
Q. Could you go to page 4 {E4/82/4} at the bottom, please.
In response to your long response at paragraph 50, you
are then asked by Post Office:
"When did you first put the cheque in the stock unit
then."
You said at 52:
"I had a cheque in before but then this was the
final cheque.
Question:
"So when you came to do a branch trading, how have
you been accounting for that cheque?"
And your representative said:
"Well he accounted for his mutilated notes didn't
he?"
And you said:
"Yeah mutilated notes."
Question:
"So you inflated your cash?
And you said:
"Yeah there was no other way where I could put it
in."
A. Again I was just really vulnerable but I can answer this
as well. This was things I was agreeing to when
I shouldn't have agreed to. But what -- the thing was,
when I was transferring the branch to the person who was
taking over, Ms Daljit Matharu, she was taking over the
branch, so I had to do another balance, another stock
balance where I had to count the cash before, on the
Saturday afternoon when she was taking over on the
Monday. So after the trading balance there was a cheque
in there, that is where it says the first cheque. So
that would have been the first cheque. And the second
cheque would have been after doing a balance with
Ms Daljit Matharu who was taking over the office when
I was going on holiday. So that is why it says you put
the first cheque in and then, you know, I put the -- I
had the cheque before which was -- the cheque before was
for a different amount which ...
Q. Pausing there. I think you accepted before you had put
a cheque in for the previous six months of different
amounts, is that right?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. And it was for --
A. Every month would be --
Q. Can I ask the question, please. And it was for
an increasing amount, is that right? Did the cheques
get bigger over time?
A. Not necessarily. There would be some transaction would
come to correct the transaction that had gone before.
So it wasn't -- it wasn't always increasing. Sometimes
it was increasing, sometimes it was decreasing.
Q. And am I right in thinking that when you put the cheque
into the till without dating it, it was never your
intention to cash that cheque and put it through
Horizon?
A. I do not believe that is accurate. Because if I found
out that the loss was a genuine loss and I had made
a mistake, especially there was a lot of problems with
the lottery where there was many duplicate transaction
corrections of the same amount, and even when they
debited -- they were supposed to credit me with a
transaction correction, it came up as a debit, so I was
losing double. So instead of losing £1,092 I was losing
£2,000 and so on. And some were compensated some were
not. So I was still waiting to be compensated and I was
ringing the Helpline regularly about the lottery.
I phoned Camelot as well. But the cheques were
different amounts and they could have been up or down.
Q. Am I right in thinking you didn't therefore cash any of
the five or six cheques? None of them were entered into
Horizon, were they?
A. No, because every time I had a -- at the next
rollover -- there were certain -- as I said, the
transaction corrections would come back and then they
would nullify the cheque. So what was the point of
putting the cheque in? So the cheque would have been --
if I had put the cheque in, or if it would have been
a certain amount, then that -- it wouldn't have added
up, if you see what I mean.
Q. Then if we go to the top of page {E4/82/5}, carrying on
from the passage I read before, where you say:
"Yeah there was no other way where I could put it
in."
You were asked then by Post Office:
"Well there was you could have put the cheque
through and processed it."
And you say:
"Yeah exactly yeah that's my mistake."
What she then puts to you is:
"So what you've done you've inflated your cash, you
falsified your account 'cos you inflated your cash."
And you say:
"Yeah."
A. Again I was agreeing to get reinstated and just
accepting that -- what I was getting the feeling is that
if you pay the money back you would be reinstated, as my
experience in the previous audit where I paid the money
straightaway, but because I was on holiday I didn't have
the chance to pay the money straightaway when the
auditors came. So my experience was when the auditors
come you have a loss, you pay the money straightaway,
and then, you know, nothing happens. So that was the
last audit I had and that was my experience. But
because I wasn't in the country I thought this was my
chance to pay the money back and then I would be
reinstated.
Q. To be fair to you, I said that paragraph 61 was spoken
by you. In fact it was your adviser who said:
"Yeah but the trouble is ..."
That was in fact your adviser, not you, that said
that.
A. Yes, exactly. This -- Mike Darvill, he's from the
Federation, even he says it is common practice to do
that, that a lot of postmasters used to do this, because
you can't go to the bank on trading -- sometimes I used
to stay until 11 o'clock at night, you can't go to the
bank then and get a couple of thousands pounds out and
then put it into the -- so it is easier just to put the
cheque in and that is covering the loss. You are doing
your bit to cover that loss.
So when you are rolling over, you are signing the
documents, you are saying that the losses are covered,
everything is fine and you are balanced. So that is
what I understood to be balanced.
Q. But, Mr Abdulla, there would have been a shortfall if
you had not inflated the cash, wouldn't there? You
hadn't inflated the cash, unusable notes, on this
particular occasion, because you didn't enter the
cheque. So you have to inflate the cash otherwise there
would be a shortfall. Do you agree with that?
A. No, the only time that would happen was on a trading
balance.
Q. Which happened every month.
A. Yes, but I had the cheque in there to cover it.
Q. No, what I am saying is the cheque wasn't to cover it,
was it, because the cheque wasn't entered into Horizon,
so on the balancing day there would be a shortfall if
you hadn't inflated cash? Because although you say the
cheque is in the till, it is not entered in Horizon, you
are not cashing that, so there would have been
a shortfall, wouldn't there?
A. The reason I was doing that was again because I thought
it was --
Q. Firstly, do you accept that is what you were --
A. -- the right thing to do.
Q. Do you accept that is what you were doing?
A. Can you just -- it's a bit confusing. Could you say
that again?
Q. On balancing day there would have been a shortfall if
you hadn't inflated the cash. Why? Because you hadn't
entered the cheque into the system, you had merely put
it in the till in an undated form.
A. But the office overall had balanced because the cheque
was there to cover any losses in the system.
Q. But that was Post Office's money --
A. So that cheque was in as cash. So when you do
the rollover, that cheque -- actually, sorry, was it
cash or ... a cheque in the system, to roll over the
system to the next trading period.
Q. Going on in the interview in terms of the same point
again, at the bottom of page {E4/82/5}, last couple of
lines:
"You've had, and from what you're saying that these
losses have built up over 2 or 3 months, you've had 2 or
3 months to make it good you know."
And you say:
"Yeah I have made a mistake."
You are then asked by Post Office:
"So you've been inflating your cash which is
falsifying your account 'cos when you, do you sign the
branch trading statement when you print it off?"
You say:
"Yeah."
Question:
"Right you're signing an official document to say
that's a true account of what cash and stock is there
and it's not."
A. Yes, I believe it was a true account of what I was
doing, it was right, there was no wrongdoing, and
I believe I was doing the right thing.
Q. Can I carry on with the question?
A. Because by covering the loss in the system with a cheque
which could be cashed any time by the Post Office or by
myself, I could have put it through the system, but it
was there to cover the losses, and I believe I was doing
the right thing, it was an adopted thing by many people,
many subpostmasters, and it was recommended to me by
an experienced staff member who had been there for many,
many years and who said that this was adopted by the
previous subpostmaster.
Q. I don't accept any of that, Mr Abdulla.
Look at paragraph 76 on the same page {E4/82/6}, the
answer to that given by Ms Ridge:
"Yeah but that's misuse of Post Office funds you're
not putting the funds back in."
Because you are not actually putting the cheque into
Horizon --
A. No, I believe I was putting the funds in --
Q. Sorry?
A. I believe there was the cheque to cover the funds.
Again, there was no losses. These were no losses
because they were mistakes by Horizon in the system
where I would get duplicate transaction corrections for
the same amount time and time again, because there was
someone on the other side of Horizon making mistakes, or
the actual Horizon system making mistakes where I was
having double losses. And even when a credit would come
to me, that would come as a minus and it would inflate
the losses. So wasn't a loss to the Post Office,
because the Post Office had their money, it was a loss
to myself.
Q. Mr Abdulla, this £2,500, yes? This is funds belonging
to the Post Office, am I right?
A. Sorry?
Q. They are funds belonging to the Post Office?
A. Which funds, sorry?
Q. The £2,500 covered by your undated cheque.
A. No, I believe this was to cover any losses that were not
genuine losses but they were just losses showing up on
the system. The Post Office had their money, they were
not losing any money at this time.
Q. So it was Post Office's money, and by putting an
undated --
A. Did I say that?
Q. I am putting to you that that is the case, and that by
putting an undated --
A. No. No. You're confusing --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on, Mr Abdulla, hold on.
Mr Cavender has to put Post Office's case to you, and
I accept that you don't agree that it was Post Office's
money, but what Mr Cavender is now doing is he's putting
the subsequent points to that. So I have got your
evidence on whose money it is.
Mr Cavender, would you like to continue?
MR CAVENDER: So I say the premise is it's Post Office's
money. By keeping the undated cheque in the till, that
money remains in your bank account, doesn't it?
A. Yes, because it was not -- it was not the Post Office's
loss, it was my loss. I was covering the losses on the
system. But again there were no genuine losses made to
Post Office. There was a lot of mistakes being made,
and the reason I adopted this was when I came to find
out about these losses, otherwise I would have -- and
the last one and a half years before this I was putting
in money from my own funds and covering the losses
and I estimate about £10 to £12,000 of my own money went
into the Post Office.
Q. You certified every month, is this right, that the
content of this balancing and trading statement was
an accurate reflection of the cash and stock at this
branch, yes? You did that yourself and signed that
yourself every month, am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did that in circumstances, I suggest to you,
when you knew it was not true?
A. I believe it was the right thing to do. I did not --
when I accepted false accounting, that was the biggest
mistake, because again if I had some legal advice --
then I didn't understand at the time how serious
an implication of false accounting is, I just assumed
that I just made an error, and as soon as I paid the
money back I would be reinstated.
So I don't know why they said I can't bring anyone
from a legal -- a solicitor or anything, but now
I understand why. Because I feel that I was trapped,
and because of my vulnerable situation I was taken
advantage of.
Q. Mr Abdulla, you could have simply paid the cheque in.
That is what you could have done at any stage.
A. There was no reason to. There was no loss in the actual
system. There was just a transaction correction which
was waiting to be reversed.
Q. You knew the longer that you ran this secret deficit in
this way, the more difficult it was for anyone to
discover what the original cause of it was?
A. I knew what the original cause was, it was mistakes from
the Post Office in the lottery. The reason the previous
subpostmaster didn't have the lottery in -- the lottery,
and that was my condition, to put it into the Horizon
system where it was previously on the retail side, and
subsequently my -- the person who took over from me had
many problems with the lottery through Horizon.
I don't know why they would put it through -- why they
wouldn't put it through Horizon unless there was some
problems because I would get more, anyone would get more
commission going through the Horizon system. You would
get a few pence every ticket, every line of ticket more.
So it doesn't make sense not to go through Horizon.
But there must be something wrong where you had these
errors come up time and time again and you would have
double losses, double -- someone was processing
transaction corrections which were duplicates --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have got that point. So you say you
would be debited twice.
A. Debited twice. And then when I was credited, that was
coming up as another debit, so it would be triple.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have that evidence.
MR CAVENDER: Mr Abdulla, the problem with all this is
whatever the original cause for any of this deficit, and
I don't accept for a moment what you are saying, it is
quite a distinct thing, is your duty to account
honestly, isn't it, when making your declaration --
A. No --
Q. -- and to do so honestly?
A. That is inaccurate. I -- at the time and even now
I believe that I was honest in my dealings. I had no
undoing -- sorry, I had no malicious -- no, you know --
criminal mind or whatever you call it, I had nothing
that was -- I believe I was doing the right thing, and
it was my office, I treated it like my own. I wanted to
make money, I wanted to be successful, I wanted to
increase the sales, I wanted to increase the retail
side, I wanted to buy another Post Office, and so on and
so on. And I was happy at the time, and I used to do
this because I thought there was nothing I am doing
wrong. When the auditors came and they found I was
doing wrong, that is the first time it occurred to me
that they are saying it is wrong. But I still -- I say
that I did nothing wrong.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: You knew your declarations were untrue.
A. No.
Q. And you knew you were misleading Post Office?
A. No, I don't agree.
Q. And you did so deliberately?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
Now, in terms of the underlying errors,
I don't think you say very much about the underlying
losses. What investigations did you do into what caused
the original losses of the various types found on the
audit?
A. There was very limited I could do. I would just have to
wait for transaction corrections to be reversed. There
was the Helpline that I mentioned before was
absolutely -- not very helpful. It just seemed like
they were going through a flow diagram or step-by-step
guide. And then all the answers would point to go
through your paperwork or just wait for a transaction
correction to come through.
Q. So if we look at {E4/67/1}, the audit paper with the
various deficits there, these were all a complete shock
to you, you didn't know that any of these existed, is
that what you are saying?
A. Sorry, where is that?
Q. {E4/67/1} At audit these are all the differences in the
various areas.
A. This was the audit time, yes?
Q. Yes, but you're saying --
A. This doesn't show any transaction corrections.
Q. No, but you are saying all this is a complete surprise
to you. You thought everything had been done in
a proper way and therefore --
A. The amount is surprising because when I left it wasn't
that much. And there was another error because this
amount went down to £3,900 and something, because what
had happened was when the auditor had accepted another
duplicate transaction correction, so inflating my total
loss for the office, which was later reversed, and then
it was reduced to £3,900. So what had happened was
I had suffered a double loss, because they shouldn't
have accepted that, and the first one was an error. So
I only got compensated for one of those, and the other
one, which was another £900-odd, should have been
deducted from the £3,900, so it should have been about
£3,000. Which is similar to the £2,500 cheque. £500
could have come in afterwards when I -- after I had done
the balance or, you know, it could have come from
somewhere else. So it is only a £500 discrepancy to the
cheque that I put in.
Q. So again focusing on the underlying causes for these
losses, I think you employed up to five assistants, did
you, over a period?
A. Yes, there was two part-time and there was a few
full-time, yes.
Q. You weren't always able to supervise them? You weren't
always there, I imagine?
A. No. I was there I would say about 95 per cent of the
time.
Q. And in terms of trying to work out where your losses
over the last six months have come from that you had
been rolling, did you interview the staff or consider
the possibility of wrongdoing or mistakes by them?
A. No, I had complete faith in them. They were very
honest. They had been there for a long time. The
previous subpostmaster, he recommended them.
I noticed things like if someone -- if a customer
would come in and they would give too much money to
them, they would always stop them and say "You have
given me too much", or if there was too much in an
envelope they would always give the money back to the
customer. One time I even tested -- when I was starting
I tested by remming out a small amount of money to one
of the other counters, and then they would say "Don't
forget to put it in the system" -- sorry, I would give
the money but not put it through the rem, and they'd say
"Don't forget to put it in the system because we are
going to be short at the end of the day".
So I did test them, I didn't need to, but just
little things like that, and I had no issues with them,
no -- I didn't have no things that I would not trust
them. I 100 per cent trust them.
Q. You were running a commercial business alongside the
Post Office in these premises.
A. No, I was not.
Q. Not at all?
A. No, that was sublet to someone else. I was getting rent
for that. I was 100 per cent committed to the
Post Office and I was there, as I said, 95 to
98 per cent of time.
Q. I formally put to you that any deficits you did suffer,
the likely cause is error by wrongdoing -- error or
wrongdoing in the branch by you or your staff?
A. No, I 100 per cent disagree with that, and I
100 per cent say that the errors were due to someone on
the other side of Horizon, or Horizon itself, making
errors itself and giving me double, triple transaction
corrections for the same amounts for the same things.
And also when I did have an apology transaction
correction it would still be a minus figure, so that
would add -- so someone was not doing their job properly
or it was the system, I don't know what it was, but it
is riddled with errors from start to finish. In the
beginning there was wrong dates in letters. In the end
they were actually -- my suspension was actually decided
before the actual audit. The termination was decided
before the actual appeal. It was all signed and dated
before the actual event happened.
So I believe that this was all planned. It is
a conspiracy to -- because I was on a lucrative contract
and they were trying to get me off the core payment,
which they have got contracts now about reducing the
payments on core -- only sales tier payments are on the
contracts. They were closing down small village
offices. Also this was all a national cost-cutting
measure. The only way they could do that is give these
0 per cent of three months' notice and zero notice
things. So they can come in any time, do an audit, have
this reason for their suspension, a silly reason, they
could make up anything. And also the other way was buy
them out, give them two and a half times salary, buy
them out. They couldn't do that to me because that
would have been nearly £300,000, so this was another
alternative, a cheaper alternative for them, and that is
what I believe, my Lord.
Q. Go to paragraph 119 of your witness statement, please,
{C1/4/24}. In the final sentence you say:
"I was given the impression during the interview
that if I paid this I would likely be reinstated, and
that is the reason I paid the amount to Post Office by
cheque the same day."
Do you see that?
A. Yes. I would never have paid that amount if --
Q. Can I ask a question? Mr Abdulla --
A. -- I didn't think I'd be reinstated the same day.
I would have left that amount. Because I know that
wasn't a genuine loss, and then I would have waited for
that loss to come up to my office.
Q. Can you tell me, please --
A. Because that loss must have come up.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on --
A. Someone must have made that money up, and not me. It
wasn't me.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Abdulla, I really have been very
patient. You are now just going to have to listen to
Mr Cavender's questions. I have read your witness
statement and I understand your explanation for what has
happened but you have to just listen to his question and
answer his question, please.
A. Sorry, my Lord.
MR CAVENDER: So paragraph 119 of your statement, the last
sentence, page {C1/4/24}, you say this:
"I was given the impression during the interview
that if I paid this I would likely be reinstated, and
that is the reason I paid the amount to Post Office by
cheque the same day."
What do you say gave you the impression you refer to
there? What was said or done by someone to give you
that impression?
A. It is just the previous experience. When I paid off the
audit previously, which was for a bit, it was less ...
MR JUSTICE FRASER: £300-odd.
A. Yes. So my understanding of the process was the same,
but because I was not in the country I couldn't do it at
the same time. I couldn't pay the money I was losing at
the same time. So I thought this was my chance to pay
the money off and I'd be reinstated.
And not only that, Mike Darvill, he also made that
assumption. He also gave me that feeling that if I paid
the money off then they would reinstate me. And also
when I was at interview as well, I got that feeling as
well, that they just wanted the money paid off and then
everything was fine. But little did I know that they
wanted the money paid off and then they would say
bye-bye. Because if they would have said or insinuated
that you are not ever going to be reinstated, then
no one would pay that money back, would they? Because
it is not a genuine loss. It is a loss to me when
I paid that, but it is not a genuine loss to the
Post Office. It just shows up on the system.
MR CAVENDER: Can we look at what the interview said at
{E4/28/28} through to {E4/28/29}. This is right at the
end of the interview, the last things that were said.
In the middle of the page at 37, ER, Ms Ridge, says:
"I don't know if there is. Went on to say she has 2
choices:- one would be that I could reinstate you. If
I do ... It would also be on a final written warning on
the understanding ..."
A. Exactly.
Q. Then you say:
"Yeah I will definitely do that now yeah
definitely."
Then she says:
"Well because what you've done is falsifying
accounts, that's if I reinstate you. My other option is
I could consider terminating your contract. I haven't
made the decision yet at all. I need to go away ..."
A. Yes, but it's the way they say it. You get an idea of
what they mean. When she was saying this, she was
saying this in a way that I would -- I am going to
reinstate you, I haven't made 100 per cent decision but
it is likely that I will. If you pay the money then
I will. Also she was going to -- I don't want to say --
it is not a related topic --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If it is not related to the question
we'll move on.
A. She was supposed to investigate Camelot's --
MR CAVENDER: Then if you go on, at the bottom of 28 your
representative MD admits you have done "silly things"
et cetera, but basically in mitigation. Then
Elaine Ridge says at the top of page 29 {E4/82/29}:
"I would appreciate if you could send me a cheque
for the outstanding debt as it stands at the moment,
that doesn't take into account any errors that might
come. Up until yesterday morning it was £3926."
A. Yes, even the way you are reading it, that is the way
she was saying it. She was saying it as if I would be
reinstated. So I paid the cheque straight away,
I didn't even pay it the next day or whatever, I paid it
straightaway. So that is my understanding of what would
have happened.
Q. I suggest to you she didn't give you an impression and
it is just wishful thinking on your behalf?
A. No. What it was, she just wanted me to pay the money
off, so that is why it was all nicey nicey. It wasn't
because she was going to reinstate me although I got
that impression, it was just getting the money and
getting me out of there and never considering
reinstating me, just suspending and then terminate.
That's it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
Mr Cavender, any more?
MR CAVENDER: I have noticed in all the notes of the
interview et cetera there is no mention anywhere of you
saying you didn't have a copy of your contract. Surely
if you were wanting to curry favour and effectively say,
well, you behaved badly, Post Office. I didn't even get
a copy of my contract. Isn't that something you might
say --
A. No, because up until the audit, up until all this
happened, everything was perfect. On a day-to-day basis
you don't need your contract, that is why I just forgot
about it. I mentioned it once to -- when I -- but then
you don't need it so it just goes out of your mind. You
are on a day-to-day basis, you are just on Horizon and
so on and so on, you don't refer to it any time. So you
are not -- it is not in your mind. The only time you
would need it is things like this at the end but before
that everything was fine.
Q. Moving on to training. You deal with this at
paragraph 82 and following in your witness statement.
I will deal with this quite quickly.
Essentially you say you thought the training on
Horizon wasn't sufficient for you, is that a fair
summary?
A. Sorry, where have I said that?
Q. Paragraph 82. {C1/4/15}
A. No, you are taking it out of context.
Q. You tell me what you think about the Horizon training.
A. The training was in two sections, so there was the
classroom training which was about two weeks, and I have
said in my witness statement that was very thorough and
very useful especially for someone who had never seen
the Horizon system, and that was very helpful and it was
a good training session and a good training period.
Q. You had ten days of classroom training?
A. Yes, two weeks, Monday to Friday.
Q. And you had training on Horizon?
A. Yes, we had a dummy system. That is what it should be
called. We had a dummy system where we would replicate
making transactions, buying stamps, what to press on the
system, on the screen. Just up-selling, asking
questions. If they come in for a stamp, would you like
it there next day?
Q. You're taught how to balance on the Horizon system?
A. We had our own tills. It wasn't a balance for -- like
as in real life, when I had a five counter office and a
back office to deal with, it was just the till. So we'd
count the stamps in the till, count the cash in
the till, count whatever else is in the till, and then
tally it up with Horizon. So it wasn't relevant to
doing a balance in a whole five counter office.
MR CAVENDER: I don't know how much ... there are lots of
guides I could put to this witness.
There are lots of guides and other things that were
given to you and used during this course dealing with
Horizon and balancing, weren't there?
A. It was mostly about sales. There was -- because
balancing, it would have -- unless you are -- when you
had the live training, when the trainers came to the
office, that is when we had the proper training on
balancing and stocktaking and so on. But as a dummy
system you only have one till, you have some cash and
some stamps and so on, a limited amount, which if you go
through that training it seems pretty easy to do
a balance, but it is -- it doesn't replicate real life.
Q. In terms of the Horizon user guide, is that something
you were given after your training to go away with?
A. No, I don't know what a Horizon -- I had a balancing
guide, but I don't know what a Horizon user guide is.
Q. What was the balancing guide?
A. As I said before, it was a laminated A4 paper, two
sides, and that is what I used to use for balancing.
Q. If we go to {F4/3/1}, see if you recognise that.
A. No, I don't.
Q. That is a Horizon user guide.
A. No, I never had this.
Q. Go to {F3/58/1}. This was one of your classroom
sessions.
A. Yes, this was just put up on the screen, but they can't
talk through how to do a balance. You have to actually
do it, it's a practical thing. So this was just on the
screen at the time.
Q. But didn't you have a dummy terminal, like you say, to
work through?
A. Yes, just the till, not a back office or an office or --
we all had our own tills, it wasn't me on my own.
Q. By till, do you mean a touch screen, the Horizon touch
screen?
A. With a terminal as you have in a Post Office, you have
a till with a touch screen terminal and so on.
Q. Exactly. And no back office, obviously, because this is
a training session.
A. That is what I am saying.
Q. {F3/59/1} please. This is another session,
"Introduction to Horizon and Helpline". Does that sound
familiar?
A. Yes, it is just -- again that was on the screen, and
then you have a practical exercise as it says there.
Q. For an hour and a half?
A. You swipe a magnetic card and so on. So that was just
part of the introduction. So that is how you register
your details on the system, so you swipe the card.
Q. {F3/60/1}, stock balancing, one hour and 45 minutes, and
then --
A. Yes, that sounds about right. When you are doing your
first balance on the till, although it seems minimal,
but when you are first coming into it, it is pretty
much -- because it's the first time you are doing such
a thing. I don't think it would have taken an hour and
45 minutes, I think that would have been the maximum.
Q. That's on day 3. Then look across at days 5, 8 and 10,
another hour and a half.
A. Are they classroom training?
Q. This is classroom training, yes.
A. That is why I said in the beginning it was very thorough
and very useful and I was very competent about how to do
my own stock balancing at a till, which was easy, which
was fine. I could do my cash, do my stock on the till,
everything. The main problem is doing the whole office,
that is when the problem -- there is not enough support,
not enough help, doing the back -- it is fine, I was
fine doing it, it is just when there is a problem there
is not enough support. Helpline is not useful. What
should have happened, they should have had someone
coming in, if you have any problems have someone come in
and just run you through what you are doing wrong,
rather than just an audit and then bam, suspension.
Bam, termination. Just a bit of support would be great.
Q. {F3/54/1} please. So you are taught here how to use
operations manuals, yes? Their importance and how to
use them, do you remember that?
A. Yes, there was examples of these manuals, just a few
manuals that they had examples of --
Q. These are the ones we saw you signing for in
the ARS 110, aren't they?
A. I don't remember that. What is that number?
Q. That is the document that lists all the documents they
handed over to you. It was those kinds of manuals and
documents --
A. The one in the folder?
Q. On handover.
A. The big folder. Yes, that is fine. Yes.
Q. Then balancing procedures. If we go to {F3/70/1},
please. Do you recognise that document? It's a guide
to assist.
A. No, this doesn't ring a bell actually.
Q. Then {F3/77/1}. This seems to be similar to the Fablon
thing you are talking about. It is an overview
document, isn't it?
A. Yes, this is like a guide to where everything goes at
the end of the day. So I don't think this would have
been done in classroom training, unless I am mistaken.
It was more of a back office when it was live --
Q. It was more something you had been given, perhaps?
A. No, I wouldn't say that. Maybe it should have been in
my office. But again the one I had, the laminated one
I am talking about, it did have similar pictures.
Q. Finally {F3/78/1}. Again, this is a sort of what I call
really an idiot's guide?
A. No, this doesn't seem familiar.
Q. I'm not suggesting you needed it. But it's an overview
document to help you do the process, isn't it?
A. It is not familiar to me.
Q. Helpline then. Again you deal with this at paragraph 82
of your witness statement and following. {C1/4/15}
You say you called the Helpline six to seven times
per month, is that right?
A. Yes, that is -- yes, about average, six to seven. Some
months it was more, some months it was less depending on
the losses.
Q. I have the call log at {E4/72/1}, if that can be
expanded. That doesn't show, if we can read it,
anything like calls of that frequency?
A. I can't really see this.
Q. Is it possible you have got that wrong and you didn't
call that frequently? Because it certainly isn't shown
by this --
A. I can't see the document. It is very blurry. The
problem was with the Helpline, ringing was one thing and
then having someone answer it or someone being helpful
on the other side was another thing. So in the end if
you are getting no help and no answers you don't really
phone that much, so you kind of give up and go through
your figure-work, your papers again, and try and find
the mistakes yourself -- sorry, alleged mistakes,
I don't think they were mistakes but, as I said, it was
not from my side. But you try -- you go through your
paperwork but nothing turns up. So it's very
frustrating when you have gone through everything and
you're still not finding the answers, so -- and you
phone the Helpline and they are no use.
I spoke to my area manager but they are only limited
to giving out point-of-sale material, the latest sale
material, and they are only interested in making the
sales for the Post Office, increasing sales for the
area.
Q. I put it to you formally that the Helpline did give you
a reasonable level of help and assistance.
A. I don't know where you are getting that from but it is
not true from my side.
Q. The other thing to put to you was that Christine Adams
and Christine Stevens are two different humans.
A. No, that is not --
Q. One is not the married iteration of the other.
A. That is not possible. Christine Adams is the area
manager and she was there during the audit and she was
the one I was discussing before.
Q. The point I put to you, you said Christine Stevens, who
we saw sign the documents, is the same person as
Christine Adams --
A. That is correct --
Q. And what I am saying to you is that is incorrect.
A. Sorry?
Q. I am saying it is incorrect. They are two different
people. One is an auditor and one is an area manager.
A. So your Christine Stevens, was she at the audit time or
the area manager or at the interview?
Q. Christine Stevens was an auditor who signed the
paperwork on transfer day.
A. Okay, so there is a Christine Adams and a Christine
Stevens, is that right?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is what Mr Cavender is putting to
you.
A. I was under the impression it was the same person but
she had got married because the first name was the same.
So when -- the person who dealt with me -- the auditor
has nothing to do with me after the audit, they are just
concerned with the audit, so the person who was dealing
with me was my area manager and I believed her name was
Christine Adams or Christine Stevens and she got married
afterwards.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
MR CAVENDER: I have put to you that you have falsified your
declaration to Post Office and you have done so
deliberately. You have signed a Statement of Truth on
your witness statement: the contents of that statement
are true.
What I am going to say his Lordship at the end of
this trial is, as you are capable of falsifying your
declaration on your accounts, you are just the sort of
person who would falsify a declaration on a witness
statement so you shouldn't be believed.
A. That is not true.
Q. And I am going to say that. Would you like to give any
reason as to why I shouldn't make that connection?
A. Because that is baseless and senseless. Because
I believe I was doing the right thing, my Lord. I do
not believe I was falsifying any accounts. And in fact
I would do the same thing again if I went around because
that is the only advice I had at the time. Again there
was no support from the Post Office on what to do. The
only support I got was from colleagues and so on.
I believe I had -- was doing no wrongdoing whatsoever.
100 per cent I believe in myself. And I would not have
jeopardised my livelihood for a couple of thousand
pounds.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: No further questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
Mr Green?
MR GREEN: No re-examination.
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have a couple of questions. The first
is just terminology and I am just going to read
a transcript reference. At {Day4/93:14} of today's
transcript, Mr Cavender was asking you some questions
and he used the phrase "rollover period", and in your
answer you used the phrase "transfer rollover period".
I'm not really sure what that means. Did you mean the
same as accounting period?
A. Was that when I was going on holiday?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I tell you what, I'll take you to the
bit of the transcript. It's just so I can understand
what actually you meant. I will just remind you of the
transcript. It is easy for everybody to mix up phrases
so I just wanted to be clear about something.
You explained to -- I will call up the document.
You were being asked about a document at {C1/4/20} which
is part of your witness statement. There is
a paragraph, paragraph 102, where you had said:
"As far as I recall there was no process in Horizon
which required proof that I was the person accepting the
transaction correction (rather than an assistant ...)
which I do not think was right ..."
Do you see that?
A. Yes. So I --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just wait, Mr Abdulla. Hold your
horses. And Mr Cavender said to you -- he had already
asked you some questions about it. You said:
"If you are disputing it, it will still be under
dispute but you still have to sort it out at that time.
So that is when you get -- in the next trading period
you could get a transaction correction to correct that
correction. To nullify that. So it is still in
dispute. Or it may not be in dispute but a transaction
correction could come to reverse that correction on the
next trading period."
Okay?
A. Uh-huh.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Then later on in answer to another
question you used the expression "transfer rollover
period". You said:
"I just explained it to you. You have to accept it
whether you like it or not. Whether you -- it is still
in dispute if you have disputed it. Whether you agree
with it or not, you have to accept it. It is not that
you have a choice. On transfer rollover period you have
to accept it."
By "transfer rollover period", did you mean that or
did you mean something else?
A. No, I meant the same thing --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Transfer --
A. It's the period --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The accounting period?
A. Yes, the rollover period.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You just used the phrase again, rollover
period. Do you mean the end of one accounting period
and the beginning of the next?
A. Yes, that's right. Rollover means to the next trading
period.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. That is what I thought you
meant, but I just wanted to ask you the question to make
that clear.
A. Yes, there are many terms we use --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: "Rollover period" is a term which
I didn't think I had come across before.
I assume there are no questions arising out of that?
Thank you very much for coming, Mr Abdulla. You can
now leave the witness box.
(The witness withdrew)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just before we call the next witness it
might help if page {E4/54/1} is brought up, please. The
counters operations manuals, volume 1 to volume 5,
I would like a hard copy please of those volumes,
insofar as it is possible. It doesn't have to be today,
it doesn't even have to be tomorrow, but certainly by
some point next week I would like to have a copy of what
this witness said was a lever-arch file or two
lever-arch files.
Then under Horizon, Horizon user guide and Horizon
balancing guide, I would just like an electronic trial
bundle reference for those two documents.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, can I be clear what you are asking
for because these change over time, these documents.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I imagined that would be the case.
MR CAVENDER: So we want the ones for Mr Abdulla.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, please. I should have made that
point at the beginning, yes.
Thank you very much. Mr Green, you are going to
call ...
MR GREEN: My Lord, would that be a convenient moment for
the ten-minute break?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes. And I think your next witness ...
MR GREEN: Elizabeth Stockdale.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. 3.15 pm.
(3.07 pm)
(A short break)
(3.15 pm)
MR GREEN: My Lord, there is one amendment to be handed up.
(Handed)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
MR GREEN: My Lord, I call Mrs Stockdale.
MRS ELIZABETH STOCKDALE (sworn)
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much, Mrs Stockdale. Do
have a seat, please.
MR GREEN: Mrs Stockdale, in front of you should be
hopefully a witness statement with your name on it.
{C1/6/24}
A. Yes.
Q. If you have a look at page 24 of that witness statement,
toward the back, there is a correction of a date. 2018
should be 2015 {C1/6/24}. Do you see that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. It's corrected on a piece of paper but not on the
screen.
A. That is correct.
Q. Subject to that, do you believe the content of your
witness statement to be true?
A. Yes, I do.
MR GREEN: Thank you. Wait there, please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender.
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER
MR CAVENDER: Good afternoon, Mrs Stockdale.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. A few introductory questions to settle you in. Am I
right in thinking you started working for Post Office on
8 May 2014?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you did so until your contract was terminated on
16 September 2016, is that right?
A. It is, yes.
Q. So that is two years and four months or so you worked
for Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. In terms of your background, can I take you to your CV
just to run through this with you. {E6/15/1} sets out
your experience prior to Post Office. Am I right that
you essentially have managed various clothes shops?
A. Yes, it was just one clothes shop that I managed.
Q. Madhouse UK?
A. That is right.
Q. You were admin manager there for five years?
A. Yes.
Q. And that involved collating information on 13 other
stores?
A. Yes.
Q. You then made that information available for the area
manager?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have to make sure that was done accurately?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did that with care?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read the information from the 13 stores and
passed it on accurately to the area manager?
A. Yes.
Q. You have then done various administrative jobs, the
latest one I think being the admin officer at the
Scarborough Disabilities Resource Centre?
A. Yes.
Q. Would I be right in thinking those roles, taken as
a whole, have involved you in reading documents and
understanding them?
A. You would.
Q. And that you are good on detail. Would you accept you
are good on detail?
A. Yes, the details that are concerned with the job.
Q. The taking on the role of a postmaster was going to be
significant and important to you?
A. Very, yes.
Q. So you were going to take care to ensure that all the
elements of what was being offered to you were
acceptable?
A. Yes.
Q. You were going to read documents carefully, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Consider their effect, and decide whether or not you
wanted to enter into a contract on those terms, is that
fair?
A. That is fair, yes.
Q. So in terms of your journey then applying to be
a postmaster, I think your interest started in
October/November 2013, is this right, when you became
aware from your son that the newsagent-Post Office
nearby was coming up for sale?
A. That is correct.
Q. I think you made an inquiry of Post Office on 8 November
{E6/1/1}. This seems to record, look at the top,
"Network Transformation Only", ticklist. The applicant
name and phone number is on the left there. This is on
8 November 2013, is that right?
A. It is, yes.
Q. The next thing that happens we see at {E6/2/1} is you
are sent a zip file I think for a number of documents.
We see that in the third paragraph there. Do you see
that?
A. I do.
Q. "In the attached zip file are some forms that you need
to complete to support your application."
And there is a link there.
"Please apply online as soon as possible."
Paragraph 3:
"The business plan can be downloaded ..."
And then there's a guide to filling in the business
plan.
Those documents are available. I don't think I need
to take you to them but they are behind tab {E6/3/1},
then {E6/4/1}, and {E6/5/1} and so on. These are the
documents that helped you prepare your business plan and
put your application together, is that fair?
A. That is fair.
Q. Meanwhile in the background Mr Dunk, who I think was the
freehold owner of the premises, if we go to {E6/13/1},
a letter from him on 18th. I think you met him on
18 November, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. This is {E6/13/1}. And essentially he was willing to
play ball and transfer the lease to you if you were
successful?
A. Yes.
Q. If we then go to {E6/16/1}, we see your application and
sort of presentation, really, I think is probably fair
to say, starting at {E6/16/1}. This is what you would
have submitted to Post Office, is that right?
A. Yes, I only have my profile page.
Q. Go for instance to page {E6/16/13} of this, "Customer
Service Skills":
"Smile."
This is a document you filled in?
A. It is, yes.
Q. If we go over the page to {E6/16/14}, you say:
"Make the customer feel welcome ...
"Listen."
What you are doing here and, say, at page
{E6/16/16}, "Training":
"Ensure all staff are reviewed and highlight any
areas of training required to maintain a high level of
customer service. Retain a record of all training for
future reference ...
"Offer staff the opportunity to attend training
courses ..."
So this was your business plan and your narrative,
really, is that fair?
A. It is, yes.
Q. What this shows, doesn't it, in terms of both its
content and style, is you are not commercially naive.
You are reasonably sophisticated, you have put together
a good business plan, and you would agree with me I
think you are not commercially naive. Would you agree
with that?
A. I would.
Q. So this is your application.
Then what happens is on 11 December, Post Office
write to you at {E6/22/1}. 11 December. You obviously
met them, you are interested in the possibility of
converting the branch to a Local model. What they set
out there is in terms of Post Office funded equipment,
paragraph 1, and we see there:
"A detailed list which would set out all the
equipment required would be included in the contract for
the operation of the new Local Post Office branch would
be sent to you in due course, if appropriate."
And if you go over the page {E6/22/2}, holding that
thought, paragraph 3, second bullet point:
"Both you and Post Office Limited entering into
a Local Post Office contract."
Your appointment would be subject to that. That was
no surprise to you, was it?
A. No.
Q. You were going to be regulated by a contract with
Post Office?
A. (Witness nods)
Q. Then if we go to {E6/38/1} we have a document,
"Modernising your Post Office. Your journey starts
here". You would have received this document?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And you would have read it?
A. I believe so at the time, yes.
Q. It is an overview, isn't it, of the process really --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that you are going to be subjected to. And you would
have seen on page {E6/38/3} of this, under "Here are the
highlights", there is a timeline and then the contract:
"A copy of the contract is included at the back of
this pack. You do not need to sign this version, it is
just for your information at this point. You can find
more details on page 6."
The contract was in fact included at the back of
this pack, wasn't it?
A. It was. A copy with a watermark that said "Copy"
throughout.
Q. Yes. Then if you go over the page to {E6/38/5} we can
see the journey ahead in various numbers. And we have
at 8 on page 5, under the heading "Signing the
contract", on the top left of the screen there:
"If the financial assessment is approved, and you
are happy to proceed, we would send you the full
contract for you to review and sign if you want to go
ahead."
That is what you understood the position to be?
A. Yes.
Q. Then on page {E6/38/6}, please, under the heading "The
contract", you are told your branch is converted to one
of the new models?
A. Yes.
Q. And some of the features are set out there:
"New contract has a minimum term of one year ...
contract with us as a company or an individual ..."
And things of that kind.
Then if we go to page 9 {E6/38/9}, please, this was
the return. I think you tick that box, is this right,
on page 9, saying:
"I confirm that having read through the enclosed
documents, I am still interested ..."
Essentially. And then that triggers I think the
process for an interview?
A. Yes.
Q. You ticked that box?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And you ticked it because you had read through the
enclosed documents?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And that included the draft contract?
A. Yes.
Q. The contract with the watermark on it.
The interview is the next thing that came,
5 February 2014. {E6/16/1}, please. This is a document
we looked at before. This is your presentation
effectively at that interview, am I right?
A. It is, yes.
Q. Andrew Carpenter was an interviewer at that interview,
do you remember that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. Have you read his witness statement?
A. I have, yes.
Q. You have. Can we take that up, it's at {C2/10/1}. What
he says at paragraph 7 {C2/10/2} is that a lot of time
has passed, he's carried out lots of interviews, and
whilst he can't recall interviewing you specifically, he
says he has a certain procedure or process he goes
through, and what he says is that he goes through that
process with you at this interview. So what I am going
to put to you now is what he says would have happened,
do you understand?
A. I do.
Q. He is not specifically recollecting that, but he is
saying that is what always happened for him, that was
his standard practice, and it would have happened with
you too.
A. Okay.
Q. What he says, it's paragraph 8 of his witness statement
{C2/10/2}, cast your eyes over, please, paragraph 8 and
the subparagraphs and then I will ask you some questions
about it, not in huge detail, just in terms to see what
he says was mentioned. (Pause)
Tell me when you have finished page 2, I will then
ask the operator to go to page 3.
A. Okay.
Q. Go to page 3 now {C2/10/3}. And page four, please
{C2/10/4}.
A. Okay.
Q. The first point is before you got to the interview,
obviously, as we have seen before, you had had
a watermarked copy of the contract and you would have
read that in advance of the interview, I am guessing?
A. I am guessing, yes.
Q. So as an overview point, nothing really that
Mr Carpenter says here he said in paragraph 8 would be
particularly surprising. This reflects the terms of the
contract, really?
A. Yes.
Q. So can we run through them. And what is your
recollection of this interview? Is it -- do you have
a strong recollection or are you trying to do your best
to sort of make it up?
A. Yes, I do. But the only sort of things I do remember
mainly was that I was surprised when I got there that
there was only one person, I was expecting there to be
quite a few people, which, as I say, was quite
surprising. And also, although it is laid out in his
witness statement, I couldn't specifically put my hand
on him ever making massive sort of things saying about
the losses and things like that. We spoke more, if I am
honest, about the way my ...
Q. Presentation?
A. Presentation was set out, because you actually said it
was quite good. So we talked about my background and
how I would like to move forward within my branch and
things like that.
Q. Okay. There is no dispute, of course, you did go
through that, the presentation. Obviously that is part
of it.
A. Yes.
Q. Can I run through paragraph 8.1 with you and following
to see whether you are able to say whether he didn't say
any of these things or mention them. Because he says
this is his practice, you might say "No, I can
definitely remember we didn't mention that". Yes? That
is what I want you to do with me, please.
A. Okay.
Q. Starting with 8.1 then {C2/10/2}, he says it is his
practice to mention that it is a contract for services,
not a contract of employment, and that therefore
personal service is not required. Is that something he
might have said?
A. Yes, I was aware of that, yes.
Q. You were aware that (a) you wouldn't be an employee?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have been an agent?
A. Yes.
Q. You were also aware there is no requirement for you
personally to do any service in relation to the branch,
you could use assistants as you wished?
A. I am not saying I was aware that I didn't have to be
there. No, I don't think I was ever told that.
Q. Would he have run through the key sections of the
contract as he says his practice was here?
A. I can honestly say I don't actually think that he did.
Q. And you have explained that you would be sent two copies
of the contract and, if you agreed, standard practice
was to sign the copies and send them back. Would he
have talked about the admin of signing the contract and
returning it?
A. It is possible.
Q. So 8.2 then. Would he have made the point about
responsibility; whether you were present in the branch
or not the branch was your responsibility, whether you
were there or whether you used assistants, would he have
made that point?
A. I don't remember him specifically saying so, but I was
already aware from the previous postmistress.
Q. Okay. When you say you weren't aware of things, is it
possible he did say these things, or any of these things
I am going to go through, and you don't remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. 8.3 {C2/10/3}, the responsibility for staffing the
branch and training. He says it was his practice that
he would make clear that you were responsible for your
staff and for training them, is that likely?
A. Yes, probably.
Q. And accounts, 8.4, would he have dealt with the
responsibility for preparing the accounts at the end of
each trading period that would be the end of four or
five weeks?
A. I think it was touched on very, very lightly.
Q. Did he deal with the fact that you would be responsible
for cash and stock and balancing the books?
A. Yes. I knew about that, yes.
Q. Would he have made the point that you would be
responsible for losses if there had been some error?
A. No, I was never aware of -- that it would ever come to
something like that.
Q. Had you not at this stage, because you were on the NTC
contract, clause 4.1 of that contract?
A. I probably had at the time, but you can't say that you'd
dissolve everything, it's ...
Q. Clause 4.1, we can go there if you like. It says
certainly the postmaster is responsible for losses.
A. Okay.
Q. I can take you to that if you like. My learned friend
is looking rather alarmed at this prospect. I am sure
he has read it himself.
If we go to {D1.6/3/13}, do you see paragraph 4.1?
Just read that to yourself. (Pause)
I think you said you probably read that at the time
of the interview?
A. I probably did. And can I just say it says that it
occurs as a result of any negligence by the operator.
There was never any proof that it was negligence by the
operator.
Q. I don't want to debate with you the meaning of the
clause, I think it is sufficient for my purposes that
you said you had read it.
So back to {C2/10/3} to carry on this process, if
I may. 8.5, unable to guarantee the fees from the
branch. Is that something that sounds familiar? The
fees are estimates and things of that kind. Did you
have a discussion about fees?
A. No.
Q. You don't think so?
A. No.
Q. Nothing about fees at all?
A. No, not that I remember.
Q. But weren't you quite interested in fees? Isn't that
quite an important part of your --
A. Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, he did. I was given some
literature with how much the fees were.
Q. He gave you information and talked it through with you
in some way?
A. Yes.
Q. 8.6, training, please. He would have said to you the
subpostmaster would receive training, split into online
learning, classroom training and on site training.
Would he have mentioned --
A. Yes.
Q. And he said he would most likely have mentioned the
operations manual and other instructions that were
required to follow and keep up-to-date, do you remember
that?
A. Yes.
Q. He said he would have made it clear the training of
assistants was a matter for you?
A. Yes, I was aware of that.
Q. Over the page {C2/10/4}, 8.7, there were certain
standards required to meet when running the branch. Is
that something he was likely to have said to you? 8.7
at the top.
A. Yes, I -- I am sure he did point it out. Yes.
Q. 8.8:
"I would have covered with Mrs Stockdale the
possibility of fraud. I would have started by saying
this was an unpleasant topic but that I needed to cover
it off ... possibility of robbery and theft from outside
sources and also from staff."
Do you remember a discussion along those lines or
him talking about that?
A. Not -- I wouldn't say it was something that he talked
about at length. He maybe did mention it.
Q. 8.9, he said he explained to you that transaction errors
were possible which could be the cause of a shortfall.
Do you remember a discussion along those lines?
A. I don't remember having that conversation.
Q. Is it possible you did have such a conversation?
A. I am sure it is possible but I don't remember, I am
afraid.
Q. Okay. 8.10, he said he would have informed you that
cash was only to be used for Post Office uses. He says
he used a standard example that you couldn't use money
to pay the window cleaner or take cash to buy wholesale
stock even if you were going to pay it back the same
day. Is that something he might have said to you?
A. Yes, I am sure he probably did, but I think things like
that to me would be common sense.
Q. At 8.11, he said he would explain it was important that
you understood the contents of the Local contract, your
standard terms, and answer any questions you may have
prior to signing it, and only to sign it once you are
happy to do so. Do you remember him making that point?
A. Yes, I think he would have.
MR CAVENDER: I am just checking one point, if I may, before
I move on. (Pause)
Moving on in time then. 10 February 2014,
{E6/31/1}. You were told you had been successful.
10 February 2014. You must have been pleased when you
received this?
A. Absolutely, but I already knew.
Q. You already knew because you had been phoned or
something?
A. Yes.
Q. So this is the formal letter telling you that you have
been successful and arranging training, you see there,
including:
"To assist with your preparations we have provided
the following distance learning workbooks ..."
Including the Post Office Local compliance training
workbook posted with a copy of this letter. And we see
the training, there is three days' classroom training,
half day support for the set up of your office, one day
further induction, further half day support, then a half
day on site support, et cetera.
Look over the page at {E6/31/2}, please, we can see
that the Local three day classroom training course
content, while we are here, you can cast your eye over
that and see what it includes:
"Take over stock and datestamp.
"Introduction to Horizon.
"Cash management."
And at the bottom:
"Stock balancing."
I will ask you about training later but that is just
an introduction.
In terms of the Post Office Local compliance
training booklet that I referred you to, that is behind
tab {E6/32/1}. And if we go to page {E6/32/3} in this
document, under the heading "Completing the training":
"As the subpostmaster, franchisee, operator, company
operator or branch manager, it is your responsibility to
make sure all your team members - as well as any
temporary or holiday relief staff - complete this
training. If you do not complete the training, and
ensure that everybody in your branch who needs to do it
completes it, Post Office will take action with you in
line with our current performance management policy."
So training was pretty important to Post Office,
yes?
A. It would appear so, yes.
Q. In terms of the contract, if we go to {E6/36/1}, we see
here on 14 February a letter to you, "Subject to
Contract". This is a formal legal type letter:
"I am delighted to confirm that you have
successfully completed the application ..."
And explains the next steps.
"There are three things that need to happen:
"1. Signature by you and Post Office Limited on
a conditional basis of the contract documents (these are
contained in the pack enclosed with this letter)."
And 2 we can see and 3.
Then:
"Full instructions on what to do with the documents
are included with the pack. Please make sure you read
the information in the pack carefully. Only some of the
documents in the pack need to be signed and returned to
us."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. As part of the pack, if we go behind the next tab to
{E6/37/1}. It says "Pack" at the top:
"Welcome to the next stage of the appointment
process!
We hope you find the information in this pack
helpful. Included in this pack are the following
documents:
"Preface and appendices.
"Standard conditions for operation of a Local
Post Office branch ..."
So the standard terms, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. A manual, a fees booklet and a bank details form.
Pausing there. This did attach a copy of the
standard conditions, didn't it?
A. As far as I can remember, yes.
Q. What it says under "Instructions" is:
"If you would like to be appointed to operate ..."
Then you are asked to sign and return the relevant
documents by a certain date.
Paragraph 2:
"We strongly suggest you take independent legal
advice before signing the relevant documents and
returning them to us. We would also suggest that you
keep a copy of the relevant documents that you have
signed and dated."
Pausing there. You would have read paragraph 2,
would you not, when you received it?
A. I would likely have read it, yes.
Q. And you would have considered whether, in fact, you
wanted to take independent legal advice or not?
A. I did, yes.
Q. Did you in fact take independent legal advice on the
contract?
A. I didn't, no.
Q. You decided not to?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You had legal advice, presumably, on the purchase of the
lease? The lease was purchased by you by a lawyer,
I suspect?
A. It wasn't purchased, no. I didn't -- no money traded
hands for anything that I did within the whole
agreement. So, no, I didn't get any legal advice.
Q. You didn't have a solicitor conveyancer acting for you
even in relation to you taking over the premises?
A. No.
Q. That was done informally?
A. Sorry?
Q. It was done informally?
A. Yes, it was done through my landlord. He had
a solicitor who did it all for us.
Q. He worked for both of you?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You just took over Karen's lease, didn't
you?
A. Yes.
MR CAVENDER: Paragraph 3:
"By signing and returning the relevant documents to
us, you will be making us a legal offer to enter into
the Local Post Office agreement ..."
You understood what they meant by that?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to {E6/38/1}, we see:
"Modernising your Post Office. Your journey starts
here."
I think we have seen that document before.
Earlier on I referred you to the operations manual.
Was that the document at {D1.6/1/1}? Can we have that
on screen, please.
That is the operations manual that was attached as
part of this pack, am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have read that or flicked through it to at
least see what it involved, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understood that was going to be part of the
contract?
A. Yes.
Q. Then {E5/139/1}. And if we can go to the following page
{E5/140/1}. It should be a frequently asked questions
page. (Pause)
{E5/139/3} Thank you.
Do you remember this document, "Frequently asked
questions"? It was part of the pack and it says, as you
can see:
"When would the new contract actually come into
effect?"
It says there are two dates, the commencement date
and the start date.
Paragraph 2, delay.
And 3:
"What are the notice periods for the new contracts?
"For main branches, either Post Office Limited or
the operator would need to give at least 12 months'
notice to the other to terminate the contract. For
Local branches ..."
And you were a Local branch, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. The notice period is six months and can be given at any
time after the contract begins.
"However, you can't bring the contract to an end
until 12 months after the start date ..."
You would have read that, presumably, before you
considered whether to sign the contract?
A. I would probably have flicked through it but I can't say
I would have digested it.
Q. But you obviously had the contract by that stage which
itself had a termination provision in it, referred to
here, of six months' notice. Presumably you would have
read that by this stage as well?
A. Yes, I would have thought so.
Q. And you would have recognised that that was a reciprocal
right: you could give six months' notice, or the
Post Office could --
A. Yes.
Q. -- but only after one year?
A. Yes.
Q. It says at 6:
"What should I do if I'm not happy with the
financial obligations ..."
And it says:
"If you are not happy to accept the financial
obligations in the contract, you shouldn't sign it.
Once you do sign the contract then you will be
responsible for all the obligations so it is important
you read it carefully. If you have any concerns, it's
important you contact your field change adviser as soon
as possible to tell them ..."
Et cetera.
That would have been something you would have read,
that document?
A. Yes, I would have done at the time.
Q. Then the contract is signed and where you sign the
contract is {D1.6/4/8}. That is your signature, isn't?
A. It is, yes.
Q. And you sent that off to Post Office because you were
happy with the terms?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted to contract on that basis?
A. Yes.
Q. And where it says at the top of the page:
"The operator and Post Office Limited hereby agree
to enter into the agreement as defined above."
What that means is on the basis of the NTC terms and
the manual, amongst other things?
A. Okay.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That is what you were signing to.
A. Yes.
Q. In terms of the reasonable expectations of someone in
your position at the time you signed this document,
I suggest the reasonable person in your position would
have expected that Horizon would be a reasonably
reliable computer system. That is what you expected?
A. Yes.
Q. I suggest to you such a person would also expect that
reasonable training or -- sorry, the training necessary
for you and your staff to operate the branch would be
provided?
A. Yes.
Q. And also the Helpline that you had been told about would
provide -- it would be a reasonable one to help and
assist you with any queries you had?
A. Yes.
Q. We then see Post Office signs and returns the contract,
{E6/57/1}. Do you see that? They then send it back to
you. That is really the end of the contracting phase?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what happens is you have classroom training on
14 April, you are notified of that at {E6/64/1}:
"Office opening ..."
On 18th May, and then this is the three day
classroom training content, and then underneath there is
the induction course content.
In terms of training materials if you go to
{E6/41/18}, please. Before I go on, I just looked at
the transcript and I need to return to a question about
the training.
The reasonable person would have thought that you
would have a training necessary for you to operate the
system?
A. Okay.
Q. As opposed to your staff. It's limited to you, the
training would be necessary for you to operate Horizon
and your branch?
A. That isn't how it was, because my son came on the same
training session with me and he was shown exactly the
same things to do as myself. I was never shown anything
over and above what a normal counter assistant would
have been shown.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You were given two slots on the
training, weren't you?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And you decided to take your son.
A. My son, yes.
MR CAVENDER: I understand. So the Locals pack then.
{E6/41/1}
MR GREEN: My Lord, I am slightly concerned. The witness
was shown the induction training, so there is the
induction training, and then my learned friend moved on.
I don't know whether my learned friend accepts the
evidence that it never happened at the branch because
building works were still going on, at paragraph 79, or
not. But the witness was looking a bit puzzled. It's
the previous page obviously.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, do you want to pursue
paragraph 79 or not?
MR CAVENDER: 79 of ...? We can cover that off now if you
like.
You saw I said there is a training and an induction
training course as well. Are you saying the induction
training didn't occur?
A. Not the training that somebody was supposed to come and
do some induction training with me in the branch
afterwards.
Q. Yes.
A. I only got the first week's training with somebody
coming and watching what I was doing.
Q. You had a week of someone coming in?
A. Yes.
Q. So you had classroom training that we're about to go to?
A. Three days.
Q. Three days.
A. Yes.
Q. And then you had someone in for a week?
A. Well, Monday to Friday.
Q. Yes. To implement, if you like, and hold your hand, so
to speak, to be on hand to assist you?
A. Yes, I suppose.
Q. So what didn't you get?
A. There was supposed to be another part of the training
where somebody came to see me to make sure that
everything was okay. But because the fitment works were
still happening, they didn't come to do that.
Q. I see. And that was in addition to the person coming in
for the five days?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. I understand.
Moving on then to {E6/41/1}, the Locals pack, "The
perfect guide to your Local Post Office branch". This
is something I think you were provided with in advance
of the training, the classroom training, is that how you
remember it?
A. I honestly cannot remember. I did receive it but
I cannot remember when it was that I actually received
it or who gave it -- I'm not even sure if somebody
didn't give it to me at some point.
Q. What it seems to be is an introduction and a reference
guide and various checklists and action plans for
training, team talk and things of that kind. Have you
been through it since?
A. I -- obviously I have referred to it and looked at it in
the past, but obviously not in the past two years, no.
Q. But at the time when you were about to take over the
branch having classroom training, et cetera, my
understanding was you got it around that time, and if
you look at {E6/41/19}, for instance, "Training plan.
Setting up your training partner". What this is doing
is setting out various training tools, on the right-hand
side --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on. It hasn't come up on the
screen.
MR CAVENDER: At the top of the page to the right:
"We have a range of training tools available to
support you on the journey to transformation."
So it seems to suggest this is an introductory type
of document to help you to get into training. But you
don't recall getting this in advance of the classroom
training, you say?
A. No, I can't honestly remember when I received this.
Q. But you might have got it prior to the training?
A. Yes, there is a possibility.
Q. So the classroom training for three days, was that seven
hours a day?
A. No, no. Absolutely not.
Q. How many hours a day were you doing?
A. Maybe two or three in the morning and then three or four
in the afternoon. We had a break for lunch and then --
Q. That is seven.
A. Seven then. You said eight, seven.
Q. I said seven, you said no, and two periods of four and
three adds up to seven.
A. Okay.
Q. So it was a full day?
A. Yes.
Q. We have seen the basic outline in the letter I showed
you earlier, if you remember, and it included balancing
and an introduction -- stock balancing and an
introduction to Horizon, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to {E6/81/1} we see some of the details of the
training. Does that look like your training programme?
A. Yes, it does, yes.
Q. We can see the second slot on day 1: intro, Horizon and
Helpline. Then we have -- we can see what we have
there. We have also then balancing I think,
introduction to stock balancing, the last -- in the
afternoon of day 3.
In terms of the training materials and things, if we
can go to {F3/192/1}. This is the balancing a stock
unit session. I'm not suggesting you got this, this is
the trainer's slides obviously. We see there "Jargon
buster", "Losses and gains, your responsibility" on
slide 3. We see:
"Immediate - physically add or remove the relevant
cash amount to achieve a nil balance.
"Settle centrally [for things £150 plus] - transfers
the amount into a holding account.
"Ensure agents fully understand the difference
between make good cash and settle centrally."
You understood that, that when you had a transaction
correction or something like that you could either
accept it or you could settle centrally and dispute it?
A. No, because I think from what I understand from the
questions, a transaction correction has got nothing to
do with you balancing at the end of the week or at the
end of the month. The transaction correction is what is
sent from the Post Office to try -- to put right
a mistake that has been made.
Q. No, I am not disputing that, that it's to put it right.
But it is what you do with them, if there are
outstanding ones when you do the monthly balance at the
month-end, what you do with the outstanding ones. The
question is what you do if you have one that is open,
when you are about to roll over in the next trading
period at month-end, did you have to accept it and pay
it or were you able to "settle" it centrally and then
dispute it?
A. At the end of the month you could settle it centrally,
but I could never dispute it. I was never told that
I was able to dispute it.
Q. We can go to this in a moment and go to the manuals, but
you could settle it centrally and ring up?
A. Yes, which is what we did.
Q. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Would you not have to pay it if it was
settled centrally?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You would have to pay it?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is my understanding of what slide
three says. Is that right, Mr Cavender?
Maybe we can increase the size of slide 3, please.
MR CAVENDER: My understanding --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on a second.
Are those the options?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right.
Mr Cavender, you were about to make a subsidiary
point.
MR CAVENDER: Yes.
There is a caveat to that, that if you settle
centrally and you want to dispute it, then you can ring
and dispute it.
A. Yes.
Q. And if you do that, you are maintaining your rights to
dispute it going forwards?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And that was your understanding?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What was your understanding of how long
that process would take to resolve a dispute?
A. I would -- to be fair, my understanding, I wasn't
100 per cent sure of the understanding. But we ...
I don't quite know how to answer that question. We just
used to -- as far as I remember, we used to just settle
it centrally and then wait for instructions from the
Post Office of what would happen next, sort of thing.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, we have been going an hour or so.
I don't know if you want to have a short break there and
how long you want to sit tonight?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What is your plan? I imagine Mr Abdulla
might have taken slightly longer than you --
MR CAVENDER: He did take slightly longer. My plan was to
finish with this witness today and I don't think I am
going to. But I would like to go through -- obviously
your Lordship is rising at 3 o'clock tomorrow.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We can start at 10 o'clock.
MR CAVENDER: I think that would probably be wise. Because
I think your Lordship said you owed me twenty minutes
from yesterday.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes. You are not running out, it is
just a question of how we allocate it.
Let me just check. Mrs Stockdale, would you be
alright to stay until 4.45 pm tonight and start again at
10 o'clock?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because I imagine you are staying in
London and not going back to Bridlington.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Trains being what they are.
Mr Cavender, would that work?
MR CAVENDER: It would. If it's 4.45pm we may even be able
to finish this witness actually.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That would be best, but please don't
feel under pressure to finish by 4.45 pm because I am
sure Mrs Stockdale was expecting possibly to have to
come back tomorrow.
MR CAVENDER: Would you like a five-minute break now for the
transcribers?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Will that be helpful?
MR CAVENDER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, we will break for five
minutes.
Mrs Stockdale, you do not have to stay in
the witness box, but you are in the middle of being
cross-examined so don't chat to anyone else about the
case.
We will have a five-minute break and then come back.
(4.08 pm)
(A short break)
(4.13 pm)
MR CAVENDER: So, Mrs Stockdale, going on then in time in
terms of your relationship, the conduct during your
relationship with the Post Office once you had started.
Large parts of your witness statement deal with your
relationship and ended up being summarily terminated
a little two years later.
Now, Post Office says the time to test your account
on those matters would be at the subsequent breach
trial, but at present you should know they don't accept
your explanations in relation to various deficits,
et cetera.
Having said that, let's go to a few of them just to
test the picture. At paragraph 101 of your witness
statement {C1/6/21} and following, you start setting out
your experience of what you call unexplained shortfalls,
is that right?
A. It is, yes.
Q. Without going through in detail in your witness
statement, you start off I think in paragraph 101 with
£172.50.
And again without going to your witness statement,
25 May 2014 is £172. 15 October, 2014, a loss of some
£3,800. 15 April, some £512 on lottery prizes. Does
that sound right?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. On 29 April 2015, the loss of £2,692. Let's go to that
one because it's getting towards the relevant time.
{E6/132/3}, please. You see the £2692.80 I referred to
there, and you have a transaction correction also of
£512 in that time.
Then on 27 May, so a month or so later, you have
a loss of £2,451. And that results in an intervention
visit, doesn't it? We see that {E6/133/1}. That is
the notes from Post Office I think at that intervention
visit. Have you seen these before?
A. Yes, I have. Yes.
Q. I think in the middle of the -- sorry, at the top of the
page there is some problem with overstating the postage
figure rather than incorrectly entering rem figures.
Then in the middle of the page you were questioned,
I think, about a transaction correction of £512
regarding National Lottery and that was confirmed to be
correct.
Then they say, third paragraph:
"There is clearly a problem somewhere with the
operation of this branch if it is sustaining such
losses. The branch does seem to have controls in place
but obviously something is going wrong ... Please refer
to my report intervention last year."
So that is where you had got to in terms of that
stage.
And your response to the situation is probably best
encapsulated later on that year, 23 August 2015
{E6/138/1}, where having been chased for various losses,
and this is your response in response to the latest
letter, so perhaps turn that up first, it's {E6/137/1},
a Post Office 18 August letter where they are chasing
you for some £5,655, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Including the £512 for the lottery prize transactions,
and the discrepancies in the April and May I referred
you to briefly, yes?
And your response to that is at {E6/138/1}. And
essentially you accept some of the errors but not
others. So for instance paragraph 1:
"The lottery transaction was an error on our part
but no physical monies were ever taken.
"2. The £900 or so stamps discrepancy was an error
on my part but I corrected it when I noticed the error
..."
And so on. So that is where you had got to at that
stage.
Going to the following year, 27 April 2016, there
was a further loss of some £18,000-odd which then led to
an audit, is that right?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. The audit we can see is on 13 May 2016. The report is
at {E6/147/1}. What we can see there in the right-hand
column --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We just need to go -- this is in Excel
I think.
MR CAVENDER: In hard copy it is just a single page.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes. I think what happens is on Opus
they just say it is a native file and that will be
somewhere in Excel.
MR CAVENDER: Can we open the -- I think it is only one page
and then the balance on the -- can we open the page,
please. (Pause)
If we look at that, we can see this is the report:
"On Wednesday 11 May I was asked to lead a tier two
audit at Sandsacre ... settled a shortage of £18,000-odd
on 27 April."
Then you have the table in the middle of a snapshot
verified audit: assured amounts, volume difference, cash
difference. This is a cash difference here of minus
£7,203, yes?
A. Yes. Sorry, yes.
Q. In terms of how the accounts got into this condition and
this loss had been dealt with, if we go to {E6/40.1/1},
this is probably another -- so it's the second page of
this. 140.1, bundle E6.
So this is Andy Carpenter reporting at this time.
And if you cast your eyes over "Funds at risk":
"A shortage of £18,000 has been settled centrally
and is showing on the concurrence report. On asking
postmistress to explain the loss, it is apparent it has
been building over a six-month period and false
accounting has taken place."
Do you see that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. In terms of the detail of that, if we go back, please,
to {E6/146/1}, we noted this a moment ago. The box at
the bottom there. This is the narrative. It is the
same event obviously. Details of the audit:
"The branch is only one single unit. Stock AA.
"I began to produce Horizon reports. Once they had
counted the cash, they noticed a sizeable shortage in
cash and asked [yourself] to compare the audit figures
with the previous night's declared cash figure. The
main difference was £5,780 in £10 notes. When Dave
asked Liz to locate this amount, she explained that this
was a false figure that she had been carrying for
an unspecified amount of time and was current when she
settled the £18,000 centrally but she didn't wish to
include this figure too at that time. There was also
a shortage of £500 in £2 coins and the branch also
declared a shortage of around £500 the previous day,
giving a total cash shortage of £6,772. There was also
a shortage in postage stamps of £308 and £122 shortage
in stock, mainly scratch cards ..."
So that is what they found on the audit.
My Lord, I'm not sure if we are in the same position
as we were with the last witness here in terms of what
I am now going to ask.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You are the only person who might know
that because I don't know what you are about to ask.
MR CAVENDER: The same sort of questions as to how this
happened and what this witness knew about it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Alright. Just give me a second.
Mrs Stockdale, I don't know if you were in court for
the whole afternoon. It is at this point, because of
the reference to false accounting, Mr Cavender is going
to ask you some questions. Under the Civil Evidence Act
of 1968 you have the right to refuse to answer any of
his questions if it would tend to expose you to
proceedings for an offence or the recovery of a penalty.
As you know, false accounting is a criminal offence. He
is going to put a series of questions to you. You might
choose to answer them all, but it is right that I warn
you that you don't have to answer any of them if you
don't want to. If he asks you a question and you do
want to decline to answer it, just say "I decline to
answer that question". Is that fairly clear?
A. Yes, that is fair.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm not being patronising, I just have
to make sure you have understood it as well, although
I know you heard me say it to Mr Abdulla.
A. I did, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, no observations on the content
of that warning?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: I have read out the various extracts of what
the auditor said on the audit. What this is consistent
with is of you not accurately reporting on your previous
monthly accounting accurately, because you say you
settled the £18,000-odd but at that time there was
a further £5,000 outstanding that you hadn't settled or
paid. In order for you to roll over with a zero
balance, you must have manipulated your accounts somehow
in order to get the balance to zero. Do you see?
A. Yes, I see what you are saying but in this case that
isn't true at all.
Q. So how did you manage to roll over then?
A. Because the -- what I said in the first place, the
£5,000-odd that I thought it was, was merely -- it was
a mistake on my part and I missed it out of doing the
settling centrally, the £18,000. It was a mistake on my
part and I did miss it out. I will put my hand up and
say that. I actually did intend to settle this one
centrally the next time I did my four week rollover but,
unfortunately, I was suspended before then so I didn't
get the chance.
Q. And in terms of the overnight shortfall of £7,900-odd,
the overnight loss between the figures that should have
been there and the figures when the auditors came in,
how do you explain that? The cash and stock shortfalls
of that £7,900 that I have shown you in the audit
report?
A. The £5,000-odd that I thought -- of cash that was
missing is included in that £7,000.
Q. What about the other £2,000-odd?
A. That was the stamps and the lottery, et cetera, and
I was unaware of that.
Q. Unaware --
A. At the time.
Q. How long had you been carrying those losses, do you say?
A. I wouldn't know the answer to that question because
I wasn't aware that they were missing at the time.
Q. So how are you saying to Post Office then that you have
effectively got 578 more £10 notes than you had and
£250 worth of £2 coins than you had that we saw on the
audit report?
A. Sorry?
Q. If we go to {E6/147/1} and go to the second page of
that, what the auditor does is give a narrative to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We haven't got there yet. Here we are.
Right.
MR CAVENDER: It's the bottom part of that. Do you see
"Outlines". I read it out earlier to you. In terms of
the cash shortage £500 in £2 coins, which is saying
there is 250 £2 coins, which in fact there weren't. Do
you see?
A. I do, yes.
Q. If you look at the top, the overnight -- the previous
night's cash declared figures, the figure of £5,780 in
£10 notes. So 578 £10 notes have been declared that
weren't really there. How had that state of affairs
come to be under your management?
A. Because, as I explained to you before, I did realise
that that amount of money was missing but I had missed
declaring it in the £18,000 and was going to put it in
the next time I did the rollover.
Q. So you were deliberately misdeclaring items of stock or
cash?
A. I wasn't doing it deliberately, no.
Q. To cover that up, no?
A. I wasn't doing it deliberately, no.
Q. If we go to your schedule of information at {B5.6/1/8}.
You deal with various shortfalls and you say at the
bottom of page 8:
"Eventually the alleged shortfalls began occurring
so regularly I was left feeling as if I had no option
but to confirm that I had settled the alleged
discrepancies in cash when in fact I had not."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. "I would keep a log of the alleged shortfalls and this
eventually amounted to the final shortfall that I felt
unable to hide any longer, as detailed below."
Then that's the £18,000?
A. That is right.
Q. So unpacking that, do I take it that you had been
mis-stating your accounts in order to hide those
discrepancies? Because you say you had settled them
when in fact you had not.
A. I don't want to answer that question.
Q. So would it be right that when, during that period, you
certified under the following words:
"I certify the content of this balancing and trading
statement is an accurate reflection of the cash and
stock at this branch."
That when you signed that in fact it was untrue?
A. I never signed it.
Q. Who did sign it?
A. No one.
Q. Okay. When you presented that as part of the procedure
in order, as you knew, to roll over into the new period,
you made that statement. You knew that that act would
result in that statement being made to Post Office. Is
that a fair way of putting it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that that statement was false?
A. I actually have a reason for this. If you will allow me
to explain?
Q. Of course.
A. Because of all the shortages that I have been -- had
have been having in the past, I was on a scheme with the
Post Office to pay back X amount of the monies through
my remuneration. They were taking 500 and
something pounds out of my remuneration every month.
And I had been told in writing and by a member of the
Post Office staff that you can't enter into more than
one of these arrangements within a year of each other.
So obviously I was already paying back the
previous amount, so I feel that, when all these things
were still going wrong with the Horizon system, I had no
other choice. Because what else could I do? I had to
carry on trading and this was the only way that I could
carry on trading. Because I felt, after everything that
had happened with myself and -- in my point of view, the
Post Office weren't doing anything to help me. I had no
other choice but to do this.
Q. You could have settled centrally and disputed it, if
that is what you wanted to do?
A. I was told that I couldn't do that within a year --
Q. By whom?
A. It was written somewhere -- I have a letter actually
with it written on.
Q. Perhaps my learned friend can show me that.
I don't think I have seen that. In terms of going back
to what you were doing at this time to hide these
amounts, you must have also been declaring cash on the
system that didn't exist?
A. No, I wasn't doing that at all.
Q. Then how did you manage to --
A. Because I had my own paper trail that I had put into --
with all my staff in my shop, and what my paper trail
said was what was in that safe was actually in the safe
on my paper trail. The difference was what Horizon was
telling me was there.
Q. But you weren't putting it in the system?
A. I was, yes.
Q. You were putting it in the Horizon system?
A. Yes, and it was Horizon that was telling me the
difference in what my reconciliation of the cash was.
Q. I must say, I don't really understand that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is basically the system that you
adopted, which I think you explain in paragraphs 99
through to about 113, where you set up your separate
robust system to keep track of all the cash.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And you put in your CCTV?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And what you are saying to Mr Cavender
I think is, even while you were doing that, there were
shortfalls appearing on Horizon?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is that right? That is what it is,
Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: But I think this is a rather different point,
as to how you were accounting for it really. Because if
you had shortfalls on Horizon and you need to roll over
into the new trading period in the next month, and you
weren't putting the cash in, and we all know you can't
roll over at this stage at least physically unless it
goes to zero, how are you telling Horizon that the
deficits you are speaking about had been made good?
A. I don't think I should answer that question.
Q. You said earlier that you revealed some of the
shortfall, the £18,000 of it, on 27 April, yes, and you
paid that. And there was a further £5,000 outstanding
at that time that you decided not to pay. But you say
you didn't declare it because you didn't have any
opportunity to. But that isn't right, is it, on the
chronology? You could easily have declared it on
28 April or 1 May or at any time prior to 13 May when
the audit took place, could you not?
A. No, because you deal with everything in a four week
period.
Q. But why couldn't you have just, on the following day,
made a payment into Horizon of the £5,000 that was
outstanding?
A. Where would I get £5,000 from?
Q. You would just have to make an accurate cash
declaration, come clean, and then the system would
produce a bit of paper and you could then dispute that
or deal with it honestly, couldn't you?
A. Yes, but what we did was we had to put -- the
£5,000 would have been put into the suspense account and
you don't settle the suspense account until the four
week period. So the £5,000 would have been there
floating around.
Q. But at least then you could have said to Post Office
when they come on the audit: look, I've come clean on
the 18, for whatever reason I didn't -- the other 5 but
the following day or the day after that I put it into
suspense. I declared it accurately. You had some two
weeks or so after the 27th to do that. Why didn't you
do that?
A. I guess ... (Pause). I am sorry, I have no answer for
that.
Q. You realised that, by behaving this way and making these
declarations that weren't true, that that was a serious
matter, is that fair?
A. I just felt at the time that I had no other choice
because of everything else that was going on with the
money I was already paying back.
Q. It cannot have come as any surprise to you that
Post Office suspended you when it came across these
facts that had shown you had been less than honest in
terms of your declarations, is that fair?
A. It is fair but who -- I would like to just say that who
ever proved that that money was ever missing in the
first place?
Q. You must have realised that this behaviour and
accounting this way would make the discovery of the
cause, the ultimate cause of the underlying losses, yes,
more difficult to discover. Because the longer they are
left undetected and you are putting transaction upon
transaction on top of it, it makes it more difficult.
Do you accept that?
A. I accept that, but the Post Office weren't helping me
anyway.
Q. But by behaving this way, not only were you being
dishonest, I suggest, but also you were preventing
Post Office knowing what was going on in your branch in
relation to these matters.
A. But they weren't helping me anyway, so I didn't really
see the point in them knowing anything.
Q. In terms of underlying losses then, did you ever try and
investigate properly in relation now to all the losses
that you are talking about here? Try and work out the
cause of any of these losses?
A. Yes, I did. As I say, the paper -- the robust paper
system was placed in my branch and my staff that I had
working for me at the time were questioned.
Q. Who questioned them?
A. Myself and my husband.
Q. Are there any notes of those meetings? I haven't seen
any.
A. No.
Q. No. What was your line of questioning? What were you
trying to discern?
A. I trusted them. One of them was my son. Why would my
son do that to me?
Q. How old was your son at the time?
A. He was about 19/20.
Q. You didn't think it possible that he might have wanted
some extra money or something, or ...?
A. No. He wouldn't do that to his mum. Why would he do
that to his mum?
Q. But you asked him anyway? And the other members of
staff?
A. Of course, and I asked all the others and they all
offered me their bank details so we could check the bank
accounts if needed.
Q. Because you weren't usually in the branch at all on
Thursdays and alternate Sundays, I think? We see that
from paragraph 8 of your witness statement.
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Who was supervising the branch on those days?
A. Diana Daniels.
Q. Who is she?
A. She was one of the ladies that worked for me. She
worked for Karen before I took over the branch.
Q. Were you running a separate commercial business
alongside the Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it possible that some of these losses could be caused
by people putting the money in the wrong till?
A. No.
Q. Or misaccounting?
A. No, absolutely not.
Q. Why not?
A. Because they were kept totally separate.
Q. No, I know. That was obviously the idea, but isn't
there a possibility of people making mistakes and --
A. No.
Q. -- borrowing cash, putting things in the wrong tills.
Things of that kind?
A. No.
Q. I haven't seen the accounts of that separate business.
They have not been disclosed. Have you been through
them to see if there are any possible blips --
A. Not personally, but my husband would know. And my
accountant. Sorry.
Q. What I suggest to you is the likely cause for the
underlying deficits were caused by errors by you or your
staff or dishonesty by staff.
A. No.
Q. And that they weren't caused by any problems with
Horizon, with your training or with the Helpline.
A. You are entitled to your own opinion but, I am sorry,
I don't agree.
Q. In relation to the Helpline, I suggest that what was
provided was a reasonable level of service on the
Helpline. Do you agree with that?
A. No.
Q. And when you say in your witness statement at
paragraph 97.1 -- can we turn that up briefly at
{C1/6/20}. You say there that the Helpline operator
spoke to you and said:
"What's the problem? It's only £3,000. It's a drop
in the ocean ..."
That was never said to you, was it?
A. It was, absolutely. I was shocked because, when she
said it to me, I had always been led in the direction of
"it's only happening to you" and then when she said that
to me I thought: well, so it's not just happening to me,
is it?
Q. It's also not true when you say in 97.2 that you
requested further training. That is also not true, is
it?
A. It is true.
Q. And when in 97.1 you say you were told that you were the
only person experiencing shortfalls, that is also not
true. The Helpline did not --
A. That is absolutely true.
Q. -- say that either, did they?
A. Because I am not the only person that that was ever
asked to.
MR CAVENDER: Thank you very much, my Lord. I have no
further questions.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: My Lord, two short points. Could you be shown,
please, {E6/128.1/1}. Can we just zoom in on the middle
email there? There is an email there from Agents
Accounting Team to Liz, sent on 5 November. In
the middle, do you see? There are three emails on the
page. The second one down is from Agents Accounting
Team to Liz, Wednesday, 5 November 2014 at 12.27. Can
you see that email?
A. I can, yes.
Q. Then "customer account" is the subject. It says:
"Dear Liz, if you're able to tell me what product
caused your loss I would be able to chase that
particular team for you. If not, I'm happy to arrange
deductions over 8 months ..."
And an asterisk, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Then it says:
"On the understanding that you are not allowed to
settle any further losses until a year after this has
been repaid."
Was that one of the statements you were referring to
earlier?
A. It was, yes. Yes, it was.
Q. Can you also please be shown {F3/68/3}. Mrs Stockdale,
there is no suggestion this document was shown to you.
This is an internal Post Office document from 2011.
Look at the foot of page {F3/68/3}, the second line:
"Branch trading forces the acceptance of the TC on
the Horizon system to enable the kit to roll over."
In any of your dealings with any of the Agents
Accounting Team or these problems, did any of them
actually ever acknowledge to you that that is the
situation you were placed in when you were rolling over?
A. No.
MR GREEN: My Lord, no further questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just give me one second. (Pause).
Thank you very much for coming. I have no questions
for you. I wasn't deliberately trying to leave you in
suspense there, I just wanted to check one of my yellow
stickers. But it had been answered.
So thank you very much for coming. You have now
finished your evidence. You are of course very welcome
to come back, but you don't need to come back tomorrow
to continue your evidence. You are now free and you can
talk about the case.
A. Thank you.
(The witness withdrew)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Gentlemen, do you want a 10 o'clock
start anyway?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, I don't think so, no. If we finish
at 3 o'clock tomorrow it will be fine. We only have one
witness.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You only have one witness. Mrs Dar.
MR CAVENDER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, 10.30 am. These documents
I am about to ask for, it is just because they are
Excel. I believe they are only one page. It is
{E6/147/1} and {E6/146/1}. If they are not just a page
then tell me tomorrow. But if they are, if I could just
have a hard copy. Because I can't get at them on
Magnum.
Anything else?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If we do finish tomorrow before
3 o'clock, and there is no pressure on you to do so, and
we have a spare twenty minutes, I might just mention the
third trial, just to have a three-way discussion. I'm
not going to be making any orders until the end of this.
If we haven't got time, it's fine, it will wait until
Thursday. It is just to keep it on your radar. But it
might be, Mr Cavender, you need until 3 o'clock or
2.50 pm and that is fine. It will wait. But that is
the only outstanding point I have going forward.
So nothing else? 10.30 am tomorrow. Thank you all
very much.
(4.50 pm)
(The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday,
14 November 2018)
INDEX
MR NAUSHAD ABDULLA (sworn) ..........................1
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN .................1
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER .................1
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER ...............149
MRS ELIZABETH STOCKDALE (sworn) ....................153
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN ...............153
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER ...............154
Re-examination by MR GREEN .....................209
Day 1 transcript - Wed 7 November - Opening arguments
Day 2 transcript - Thu 8 November - Claimants: Alan Bates, Pam Stubbs part 1
Day 3 transcript - Mon 12 November - Pam Stubbs part 2, Mohammad Sabir
Day 4 transcript - Tue 13 November - Naushad Abdulla, Liz Stockdale
Day 5 transcript - Wed 14 November - Louise Dar
Day 6 transcript - Thu 15 November - Post Office: Nick Beal, Paul Williams
Day 7 transcript - Mon 19 November - Sarah Rimmer, John Breeden, AvdB part 1
Day 8 transcript - Tue 20 November - AvdB part 2
Day 9 transcript - Wed 21 November - AvdB part 3, Timothy Dance, Helen Dickinson, Michael Shields part 1
Day 10 transcript - Thu 22 November - Michael Shields part 2, Elaine Ridge, David Longbottom, Michael Webb
Day 11 transcript - Mon 26 November - Michael Haworth, Andrew Carpenter, Brian Trotter
Day 2 transcript - Thu 8 November - Claimants: Alan Bates, Pam Stubbs part 1
Day 3 transcript - Mon 12 November - Pam Stubbs part 2, Mohammad Sabir
Day 4 transcript - Tue 13 November - Naushad Abdulla, Liz Stockdale
Day 5 transcript - Wed 14 November - Louise Dar
Day 6 transcript - Thu 15 November - Post Office: Nick Beal, Paul Williams
Day 7 transcript - Mon 19 November - Sarah Rimmer, John Breeden, AvdB part 1
Day 8 transcript - Tue 20 November - AvdB part 2
Day 9 transcript - Wed 21 November - AvdB part 3, Timothy Dance, Helen Dickinson, Michael Shields part 1
Day 10 transcript - Thu 22 November - Michael Shields part 2, Elaine Ridge, David Longbottom, Michael Webb
Day 11 transcript - Mon 26 November - Michael Haworth, Andrew Carpenter, Brian Trotter