Talk:Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd

References errors

References 2 and 4 are giving references no text errors, with no apparent actual references at all, save for a tag, such as J3. Owing to unfamiliarity with the case and reference system of subject matters IRT the UK judicial system in general, I'd likely turn the mess into a proper pig's breakfast. Can someone kindly review and correct the references accordingly? It may well be simply an error in tagging, as there is a reference J3 that doesn't exist, but there is a reference 'J3 refuse' that does.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It was because an editor shifted text from British Post Office scandal without checking that the refs were complete. Southdevonian (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd have definitely bollocksed that up.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counterclaim

@Southdevonian I don't think there is any evidence that the Post Office counterclaimed in the Bates action against them. The reference given quotes only the Post Office defence. The Court uses a Generic Defence and Counterclaim form, possibly form N9D, headed "Defence and Counterclaim". If there had been a a counterclaim the judge would have had to address it in one of the judgements. He doesn't in No3. I speculate and, of course, I may be wrong. This is not a quibble; if there there was a counterclaim it would be important to know that and important to know what POL were claiming for. Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the judge was going to address it in one of at least two sub-trials that were going to take place but in the event did not because the parties reached a settlement after the first two sub-trials. Southdevonian (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Very interesting. I remember now reading Fraser J's remarks about there being a "whiff of other actions/litigation " or somthing like that when he criticised the PO witnesses. Their ambition to sue for fraud now makes Alisdair Cameron's evidence at the inquiry a tad more pithy. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CPS and private prosecutions

According to this source [1] the CPS only intervenes at the request of those accused. But a discussion of the role of the CPS belongs in the British Post Office Scandal rather than here, as this is an article about a civil case. Southdevonian (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I would go further. The terms on which the case was settled and commentary and details of that are an important component of the article. Commentary about compensation, mediation schemes etc are nothing to do with the case. The settlement was in essence a costs settlement, no liability was ever admitted. Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]