Further re Litigation

Cashbox PLC
23 February 2007


                          Cashbox plc (the 'Company')

                             Further re Litigation

Further to the announcement made on 8 February 2007 which refers to the
indemnity in favour of the Company and Cashbox ATM Systems Limited ('ATM'), the
Company's subsidiary, at a Court hearing on 21 February 2007 concerning the
ongoing litigation between, inter alia, ATM and Hanco ATM Systems Limited
('Hanco'), the Court ordered that:

1.      ATM and Carl Thomas pay Hanco's costs of the action so far as they
relate to ATM and Carl Thomas (as opposed to the other Defendants), limited to
Hanco's costs of the action in respect of those claims upon which it succeeded
on its application for summary judgment. Such costs are to be paid on the
standard basis and are to be subject to a detailed assessment if not agreed.

2.      ATM and Carl Thomas pay 60% of Hanco's costs of the summary judgment
application to be paid on the standard basis and to be subject to a detailed
assessment if not agreed. The question of the timing of any detailed assessment
in relation to these costs and those referred to above is to be the subject of
further order.

3.      ATM and Carl Thomas make a payment of £150,000 to Hanco on account of
the costs which have been ordered to be paid by them by no later than 4 April
2007.

Adjudication will be made regarding the remainder of the costs of the action at
a later date.

ATM and Carl Thomas were refused permission to appeal against the summary
judgment ruling by the Master but intend to renew their application to a High
Court Judge. In the event that permission is granted and any appeal is
successful then they will apply to have the above costs orders set aside.

Hanco's application for an interim payment (in relation to quantum) was
adjourned to a further hearing.

ATM and Mr. Thomas's position remains that Hanco would not be entitled to
anything other than nominal recovery because (i) Hanco would not have secured
Phase II of the Threshers contract in any event; and (ii) Phase II of the
Threshers contract was not profitable for ATM.




                      This information is provided by RNS
            The company news service from the London Stock Exchange