POST OFFICE LIMITED MATTERS — DISPUTE RESOLUTION
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — CLAIMS OVER £500K OR THOSE OF A SENSITIVE NATURE
POL00096033
POL00096033
POLB(12)42
February 2012
Horizon POL/HF/CD Rod Ismay
claims of POL
POL has received
notification f a total
of five (5) claims from
former subpostmasters
(SPMs) .
Each alleges wrongful
termination of contract
(based on (a) alleged
defects in POL’s
internal processes and
(b) alleged defects
with Horizon). Each is
seeking damages in the
sum of a £150,000.
Four of the five claims
yvemain at the pre-
action stage (i.e.
there are no live court
proceedings). Court
proceedings have been
issued in respect of
the fifth claim.
Shoosmiths assert that
they have consulted on
a further 85 cases,
(1) Scott Darlington. Claim
rejected on the basis that
the SPMR admitted to and was
convicted of false
accounting. Responded to
Shoosmiths on the basis that
the SPM can have no claim
for wrongful termination in
circumstances where he had
repudiated his contract.
Last correspondence sent to
Shoosmiths on 14/12/2011.
Shoosmiths have taken no
further action to date,
(2) 5
as above,
n Wilson. Position
Last correspondence sent to
Shoosmiths on 14/12/201
Shoosmiths have taken no
further action to date,
(3) Terence Walters. SPMR
admitted to false
accounting, but not
convicted.
Bond Pearce
(Gavin
Matthews,
Helen
Watson)
which are all likely to
raise similar legal
Last correspondence sent to
Shoosmiths on 14/12/2011.
Shoosmiths have taken no
further action to date,
(4) Thakshila
Somaskandarajah. BP have
responded to Shoosmiths
stating that the claim is
time barred and cannot now
be pursued. No response to
this letter from Shoosmiths
to date.
(5) Lynne Prosser.
Proceedings were commenced
by Prosser in June 2011, but
POL only made aware in
October 2011. POL applied to
have the claim struck out
for procedural error in
January 2012. This
application was successful,
but Prosser has applied for
permission to appeal.
The Appeal Court rejected
her request for permission
to appeal on 22 February
2012. Prosser now has the
option to apply for that
decision to be reconsidered
at any oral hearing. POL
awaits confirmation as to
whether or not a request for
POL00096033
POL00096033
an oral hearing has been
nade. If no request is made
or permission is again
denied, this will be the end
of the matter.
If permission is granted,
the matter will proceed to a
full appeal hearing. If the
appeal is successful, POL
will need to decide whether
or not to appeal itself.
POL is likely to have
evidential difficulties in
responding to the claim as
it appears the papers
relating to this branch may
have been destroyed in
accordance with POL’s
document destruction policy.
GRO
—
GRO
Angela Van-
Den-Bogerd
GRO has
Wade a" CTaiw Uider 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 amount is not
specified. The
estimated potential
Particulars of Claim have
been served on both Shieldex
Limited and POL.
POL has obtained an
extension of time for its
Defence to 2 April 2012.
Draft Defence has been
prepared.
It is unclear what steps
Shieldex are taking to
defend the claim. Bond
Pearce have been pressing
Bond Pearce
(Zan
Newcombe,
Dan
Fawcett)
POL00096033
POL00096033
exposure (if the claim
succeeds) is likely to
be in the region of
£6,000 to £18,000 plus
costs.
If POL is found to be a
service provider under
the Equality Act and,
therefore, liable to
make reasonable
adjustments this is
likely to have
implications across the
Network.
the solicitors acting for
Shieldex to ensure that
proper steps are taken to
defend the claim.
POL00096033
POL00096033