The High Court has ruled that claims brought by former sub-postmaster Lee Castleton against the Post Office and Fujitsu will proceed as a split trial, marking a significant development in ongoing litigation arising from the Horizon IT scandal.
Mr Castleton, one of the most high-profile victims of the Horizon scandal, was declared bankrupt following legal action brought by the Post Office in 2007. Although he later received £20,000 under the 2019 group litigation settlement, he has since issued fresh proceedings that could reportedly be worth up to £8 million.
The claim centres on two distinct legal issues. The first concerns the 2007 court judgment obtained by the Post Office, under which Mr Castleton was ordered to repay alleged shortfalls of more than £25,000 and to pay legal costs exceeding £320,000. His legal team argues that this judgment was dishonestly obtained, alleging deliberate withholding of material evidence and an unlawful means conspiracy involving the Post Office and Fujitsu.
The second part of the claim relates to the 2019 group litigation settlement. Mr Castleton alleges that the settlement was induced by misleading and inaccurate statements made by the Post Office during the Horizon Issues trial, particularly in relation to its knowledge of defects within the Horizon IT system.
Both the Post Office and Fujitsu applied for the proceedings to be split, arguing that determining the first set of issues separately could resolve the case more efficiently and significantly reduce costs. The High Court accepted this position.
Delivering his decision, Mr Justice Trower confirmed that the claim will proceed in two stages, with detailed reasons to be published in due course.
Following the ruling, the Post Office reiterated that it is not disputing Mr Castleton’s entitlement to redress, but maintains that compensation should be pursued through the existing Horizon redress scheme rather than separate High Court proceedings.
The decision highlights the continuing legal complexity surrounding Horizon-related claims and the courts’ increasing focus on proportionality, cost control, and procedural efficiency in large-scale litigation.
