POL00006404
POL00006404
POSTMASTER GROUP ACTION
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
Steering Group Meeting: 21 November 2016
DECISION: Should Post Office push for a 3 month GLO window?
SUMMARY:
Background
The hearing for the Group Litigation Order (GLO) has been listed for 26 January 2017. The GLO
includes details of how the GLO is to be advertised and a window within which Claimants can be added
to the Action. Although it is technically possible for Claimants to be added to the Action outside of this
window, permission from the Court would be required to do so.
Once the GLO has been made (in January 2017), Freeths are required to advertise it so as to ensure
that all potential Claimants have been included within the Action. The advertisement provides
information on the types of individuals whose claims would fall within the Action (i.e. were a SPMR,
assistant or crown employee who used Horizon and suffered loss due to short falls in branch accounts)
and how they can join the Action.
Current position
The current draft of the GLO provides that Freeths are allowed to advertise the GLO via their website,
the Law Society Gazette, on social media and in national and regional newspapers. The exact
parameters of the advertisement are currently being agreed with Freeths.
Freeths have proposed a cut-off date for Claimants to be added to the Action of July 2017 (6 months
after the January hearing). Whilst there is no longstop date for Freeths' advertisement of the GLO, we
would expect the advertisement to end at the same time as the cut-off date for new Claimants.
Post Office could argue that the GLO window should only be 3 months, with a cut-off date for new
Claimants in April 2017. We have attempted to agree this with Freeths already and they have refused.
Although the GLO hearing is not until January 2017, we now need to make our final position clear in
correspondence with Freeths.
ADVANTAGES OF PUSHING FOR A 3 MONTH WINDOW:
. Earlier certainty as to the number of Claimants can be achieved/
. The timeline for the Action would be brought forward by 3 months thereby reducing disruption to
the business.
. The Action is already highly publicised (i.e. there is a micro-site which has been set up Freeths
and the JFSA website). As such, the last three months of advertisement could be seen by the
Court as unnecessary, since within this period there are unlikely to be many new Claimants to
whom the Action been brought to the attention of.
. Any impact of any media attention generated by the advertisement should quieten down by April
2017. This would limit any negative impact on Post Office's brand, reputation and recruitment.
DISADVANTAGES OF PUSHING FOR A 3 MONTH WINDOW:
. Post Office could be viewed as acting in an obstructive and unreasonable manner and would
have less bargaining power in respect of other terms within the GLO. It could also been seen as
attempting to limit the number of Claimants.
4A_34352410_1 1
POL00006404
POL00006404
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
. Counsel's opinion is that the Court would more likely opt for 6 months (as this is the usual period
for most GLOs). However, it would not be unreasonable for Post Office to press for 3 months.
. To achieve this objective, Post Office may need to concede Freeths' request that a list of all
subpostmasters against whom Post Office has taken civil or criminal action in respect of shortfalls
is provided. If so, a large number of potential Claimants would already have been brought to
Freeths' attention and 3 months of advertisement would be more.
. If not all of the potential Claimants are identified during the three month period then these
individuals may try to start their own separate proceedings at a later date.
RECOMMENDATION:
Post Office holds its position that the window within which Claimants can be added to the Group Action
(and consequently the advertisement of the GLO) is 3 months.
However, in the event that it appears the Court may view Post Office's behaviour as unreasonable or
oppressive, or it becomes apparent during negotiations that other key provisions of the GLO could be
agreed in Post Office's favour if a 6 month window was accepted, then Bond Dickinson and Counsel are
provided with a mandate to agree to a 6 month window if they consider it appropriate to do so.
4A_34352410_1 2