POL00095835 - Post Office Limited Litigation Matters - Commercial Litigation - Claims in Excess of 5000K Pounds and/or Claims with wider significance for business

Evidence on official site

POL00095835
POL00095835

POLB(12)23
JANUARY 2012

POST OFFICE LIMITED LITIGATION MATTERS — COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — CLAIMS IN EXCESS OF £500K AND/OR CLAIMS WITH WIDER SIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE BUSINESS

SONTAC'

Horizon POL/HF/C I Rod Ismay Claims made by former I (1) Scott Darlington. Claim Bond Pearce
D of POL, SPMRs dismissed by rejected on the basis that the I (Gavin
Susan POL as a result of SPMR was convicted of false Matthews,
Crichton branch discrepancies. I accounting. BP has responded to I Helen Watson
Shoosmiths stating that the and Dave

The SPMRs each assert
that the procedure
for dealing with

SPMR has no claim for wrongful
termination in those
circumstances. BP has not

Panaech)

branch discrepancies
is flawed and that

the discrepancies are
in fact the result of
a Horizon error. Each
brings a claim
wrongful termination.

The five claims made
to date have an
aggregate value of
£700, 000.00.

Shoosmiths assert
that they have
consulted on a
further 85 cases, all
of which are likely
to raise similar
issues.

responded on a point-by-point
basis. Shoosmiths has
complained saying that the
response is not compliant with
the court rules. BP responded
on 14/12/11 re-iterating POL’s
position. No response received
to that letter. POL has a
potential claim for £44,000 i
respect of its losses, which
has not been pursued to date.

(2) Julian Wilson. As above,
save that the SPMR has paid his
debt due to POL in full and
there is no counterclaim.

(3) Terence Walters. SPMR
admitted to false accounting,
but not convicted. BP has

responded to Shoosmiths on the
same terms as above. No
response for Shoosmiths.

(4) Thakshila Somaskandarajah.
BP has responded to Shoosmiths

stating that the claim is time
barred and cannot now be
pursued. No response to this
letter from Shoosmiths.

(5) Lynne Prosser. Proceedings
were commenced by Shoosmiths in
June 2011, but were not served.
BP only made aware of the
existence of the claim in
October 2011. Shoosmiths made
an application (without notice)
for an order extending time for
serve of the claim form and
particulars of claim. An order
was made by the Court. BP has
applied to have that order set
aside, which (if successful)
would result in the claim being
struck out and the SPMR unable
to proceed with the matter. The
application was heard on
4/1/12. Judgment expected at
the end of January 2012.
Prospects of the application
succeeding 50/50. If the
application fails, POL will be
liable for Shoosmiths’ costs
(which have been claimed at
c£6,000).

POL00095835
POL00095835
kely to have

1 difficulties in

g to this claim as it
appears the papers relating to
this branch have been destroyed
in accordance with POL’s
document destruction policy.

POL00095835
POL00095835
GRO

POL/HF/C
D

Angela Van-

Den-Bogerd

Tain under
the Equity Act and
under the Human
Rights Act alleging
disability and age
discrimination
against Shieldex
Limited (as the
franchisee of the
branch) and POL.
Damages are claimed,
but the value has yet
to be quantified.

This claim is
potentially of wider
significance across
the network given the
implications of POL
being found by the
Court to be a service
provider for the
purposes of the
Equality Act.

Proceedings have been
commenced, but were stayed
until 8 January 2012 for the
purposes of complying with the
on protocol. I”
has to serve her

pre-ac

Mparticulars of claim by the end

of January 2012.
Letter before action has been
sent_by the solicitors acting
for BP has
sent a substantive response.

Strategy is to settle this
matter in order to avoid the
matter proceeding to t:

Bond Pearce
(Tan
Newcombe)

POL00095835
POL00095835