POL00006497
POL00006497
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED Cord Dickingor
POST OFFICE GROUP LITIGATION
Steering Group Meeting: 11 September 2017
44
1.2
1.3
1.4
241
2.2
2.3
2.4
25
2.6
27
DECISION: Does Post Office support the general strategy set out below?
THIS PAPER
On 19 October 2017 there will be a Case Management Conference (CMC). At this Court
hearing, a Judge will decide on the strategic direction of the Group Litigation for the next 6 — 24
months.
This paper explains:
1.2.1 The nature of a CMC and the Court process that may flow from it.
1.2.2 The general strategic direction that we recommend is adopted by Post Office.
Over the next five weeks in the lead up to the CMC there will be an intensive period of
engagement with Freeths, including the provision of their Reply and correspondence with Freeths
on their views on the future of this litigation. It is therefore not possible to make definitive
decisions on future strategy at this stage as it will ebb and flow with outside events.
This Paper therefore asks Post Office to approve a general direction of travel so that Bond
Dickinson may take matters forward with Freeths. It is anticipated that there will then be an
iterative process to refine the strategy as the CMC approaches, with regular (potentially weekly)
Steering Group meetings to take more definitive and granular decisions.
BACKGROUND
A CMC is a procedural Court hearing that is held in every substantial piece of litigation. In major
cases, like this one, there may be multiple CMCs. The Court or a party can call for a CMC at any
time if one is needed.
At a CMC the Court makes procedural decisions on how a case will be progressed — these are
called "directions". It does not make any substantive decisions on the merits of any particular
case.
The Court will be looking to set out a way forward that most effectively tackles the issues in
dispute. At the forefront the Court's thinking will be the need to be fair to both parties and to keep
costs proportionate. Proportionately in this context means (i) proportionate to the benefit of any
activity and (ii) proportionate to the overall value of the litigation.
A CMC is slightly more informal than a full Court hearing. A full hearing tends to be binary, with
the Court adopting one side's position or the other. Ata CMC there will be a more fluid
discussion between Counsel on both sides and the Judge, and there will be an expectation that
both parties will compromise. If no compromise can be found then the Court will make a
decision.
The art of a CMC is in pushing for a set of directions that promotes issues which favour Post
Office, whilst avoiding directions that cause Post Office to do lots of work. This needs to be
balanced against the Court's overall aim of being fair and avoiding excessive cost. A reasonable
proposal that is slightly tipped in Post Office's favour is generally the best way to proceed.
Typically, both sides bear their own legal costs of appearing at a CMC or the costs will be
determined at the conclusion of the litigation.
At Schedule 1 is a description of the various Court processes that might be considered at a CMC.
This should help define some of the terms used in this Paper and put the advice below into
context.
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
3.4
3.2
3.3
44
4.2
43
4.4
POL00006497
POL00006497
FREETHS' PROPOSED DIRECTIONS
Freeths' proposed directions are set out in Schedule 2. These directions:
3.4.1 order the parties to select some Lead Cases;
3.1.2 require Post Office to give very wide ranging disclosure, including giving disclosure on
all aspects of Horizon, helplines, Post Office support mechanisms, suspense accounts,
and investigations;
3.1.3 give an open-ended permission to call expert evidence; and then
3.1.4 ask for the parties to return to Court to decide on next steps.
We do not believe that Freeths' directions are acceptable for the following reasons:
3.2.1 The directions do not set out a clear way forward or have any particular objective in
mind. This could cause lots of wasted work to be undertaken.
3.2.2 The purpose of selecting Lead Cases is not stated. Without a purpose, it will difficult to
know which cases to select in order to fairly reflect the majority of cases and this could
limit the value of any precedent decision in a Lead Case
3.2.3 There is a significant request for disclosure from Post Office that would (i) either be
impossible to comply with because the issues in dispute are not properly defined by
only generic pleadings or (ii) would be extremely expensive — we would estimate this
cost at between £250k - £1m.
3.2.4 There is no defined scope to the expert evidence which could lead to open-ended
expert enquiries. This is not the way that expert evidence is usually ordered.
The one attractive feature of Freeths' directions is that they are simple, though on balance we do
not believe they will be considered reasonable or constructive by the Court.
OVERALL POST OFFICE STRATEGY
There are no silver bullets in this case that will dispose of all the claims in one go. There are also
few issues that are truly common to nearly all the Claimants other than Horizon and the standard
postmaster contracts (albeit that these are two critical issues — see further below). Most other
issues turn on the specific features of a particular case eg. training, helplines / support, contract
termination, debt recovery, etc.
This leads us to the view that, in the fullness of time, Post Office may need to address each of
the 522 claims individually given the diversity of their circumstances. Taking every case to a full
conclusion through the litigation process is unattractive as it would take years and the costs
would be extremely high.
We believe the better solution is to try to force the Claimants into a collective position where they
will either abandon the claims or seek a reasonable settlement. It should be remembered that
the claims are financially supported by Freeths (whose fees are at least partially conditional on
winning), a third party funder and insurers. Without this support these proceedings would not
have been possible. All three entities will likely have the power to pull their support if the merits
of the case drop below a certain level. Our target audience is therefore Freeths, the funder and
the insurers who will adopt a cold, logical assessment of whether they will get a pay-out, rather
than the Claimants who may wish to fight on principle regardless of merit
To try to force the Claimants into a position where they give up or settle, we recommend a three-
pronged approach:
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
45
46
47
48
POL00006497
POL00006497
44.4 Attack the fundamental basis of the Claimants’ claims, being their attempts to imply
new terms into the standard postmaster contracts ("Weaken the foundation").
4.4.2 Look to strike out weak claims so to reduce the number of Claimants ("Thin the herd").
44.3 Bring down over-inflated claim valuations ("Reduce the exposure").
Weaken the foundation
As noted above, there are two issues that are common to many Claimants: Horizon and the
postmaster contracts. A judgment in Post Office's favour on either point would have a significant
impact on the merits of many Claimants’ claims.
We have considered whether to address upfront the challenges to Horizon. If Post Office could
prove that Horizon was robust, this would take away a key strand to the Claimants’ case. Itis
also a truly universal issue given that Horizon was, at any given time, the same for all
postmasters. We can however see three difficulties with this route, the first of which we believe is
insuperable:
46.1 The Claimants cannot just point the finger at Horizon with no legal basis for their
complaints. They need to ground their claims in the postmaster contracts by showing
that there was some legal obligation on Post Office to maintain Horizon to a certain
standard. Determining the level of that standard is important eg. does it need to be
reasonably reliable? Very reliable? Completely error free? Offer a good user
experience? Have sufficient safeguards against user error? Without clear legal
thresholds to be met, an expert cannot give an opinion on whether that threshold has
in fact been met.
46.2 The above points also mean that we do not know exactly what disclosure and evidence
is required, which could lead to very wide disclosure being given at a very high, and
potentially wasted, cost. Expert evidence on Horizon will also be very expensive. This
lends weight to tackling another issue first.
4.6.3 Horizon has evolved over time meaning that in reality several parallel enquiries will be
needed into Horizon at different points in time.
46.4 It may be possible to limit the Horizon questions to Horizon Online, and not need to
address old Horizon, if Post Office is successful on the limitation issues (see below).
We therefore favour focussing on the true meaning of the postmaster contracts as the first
substantive issue to address in this litigation.
47.4 This will help set the legal foundation on which to determine many other issues.
including Post Office's obligations in relation to Horizon, training, support, etc.
47.2 It will help establish who, Post Office or postmaster, has the primary duty to determine
the root cause of a loss in a branch. This is an issue of utmost importance as it will
shift the evidential burden to one party or the other.
47.3 The issue of the postmaster contracts can be addressed without the need for expert
evidence, though we still believe that significant disclosure and witness evidence will
be needed.
474 A good result on this topic will send a clear message to other (non-Claimant)
postmasters as to what is required under their contracts.
This approach is not without limitations and risks.
48.1 On Post Office's best case it accepts that it had some responsibilities to support
postmasters, albeit to a lower standard than that sought by the Claimants. Winning the
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
POL00006497
POL00006497
contractual arguments will therefore leave the Claimants with still viable, albeit much
more difficult, claims.
4.8.2 There are dozens of sub-issues that are connected to the postmaster contracts,
including the factual context against which postmasters enter into those contracts and
the specific terms of those contracts and what they mean. There are also a number of
different types of postmaster contract. There is therefore unlikely to be a binary
win/lose outcome, with Post Office being successful on some points and losing others.
48.3 Moreover, the Claimants' arguments on the postmaster contracts are not without merit.
There is a chance that they might be successful, in which case Post Office would be
left in a very difficult commercial position (see our previous advice on possible worst
case outcomes).
Overall, there is no risk free way to proceed and it is inevitable that we will need to address the
contractual issues at some stage. We therefore believe it is best to address these issues at the
outset.
Thin the herd
Having reviewed the Schedules of Information received from the Claimants we have identified
various types of Claimant that might be facing procedural problems that could see them struck
out without needing to address the substance of those claims. For example:
4.10.1 Claimants who are dissolved companies.
4.10.2 Claimants who are companies incorporated after they are said to have been engaged
as postmasters.
4.10.3 Claimants who are bankrupt or deceased.
The above issues are not insurmountable and Freeths could rescue these claims if they took the
correct procedural steps. It is however quite proper that they address these points now, as would
be the case in any other piece of litigation.
There are also around 110 claimants who have previously entered into settlement agreements
with Post Office and at least 80 Claimants who, on face value, are time-barred. Typically, these
types of claim would be subject to early applications to strike them out. We cannot yet form a
view on the merits of striking out these claims as these points will turn on what Freeths say in
their Reply (due on 20 September). However, we can envisage calling at the CMC for more
information to clarify why these claims should not be struck out.
It should also be noted that limitation may become a very important issue in relation to the
challenges against Horizon. The effect of striking out claims for limitation could mean that all the
surviving claims will necessarily have to arise from events after April 2010. In early 2010, Post
Office moved from Old Horizon to Horizon Online. Winning the limitation points may therefore
limit (and perhaps avoid altogether) the need for an inquiry into Old Horizon, which would be a
very difficult exercise given that that system is now extinct.
Finally, there are various claims that, on their own facts, appear so weak that they could be
struck out. For example, Lee Castleton's claim has already been heard by the High Court and it
is potentially an abuse of process to hear the claim again in the Group Action. In the claims of Mr
and Mrs Kamran, they admit that Mr Kamran stole money from Post Office, that he was convicted
of theft and they are not claiming malicious prosecution.
The downside with the above approach is that it is piecemeal. It will require lots of satellite
issues to be run in parallel. The Court may not want to adopt this approach as it may see it being
very burdensome for the Court to manage (and Judges are very conscientious about the use of
Court resources). It may also cause Post Office to incur costs on matters that only have a micro
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
POLO0006497
POL00006497
effect, as it could be said that striking out one claim amongst 522 is not going to change the
overall dynamic of this case.
4.16 Despite these drawbacks, we believe this is the correct way to proceed:
4.16.1 On average each Claimant is claiming around £200k, so striking out even one claim is
of material benefit.
4.16.2 Collectively, the above measures could drive out a material number of claims.
4.16.3 Most importantly, it sends a message to Freeths that Post Office will not allow weak
and poorly presented claims to survive in this litigation.
4.16.4 Some early victories might shake the confidence of the Claimants, their funder and
insurers
4.16.5 The Claimants are trying to portray themselves as having been oppressed by Post
Office. Getting some of the weakest and most unattractive claims in front of the
Managing Judge at an early stage, especially those where there is clear theft or
dishonesty, might re-balance the Judge's views on the general fairness of this case.
4.17 Side Note: Nearly all the malicious prosecution claims and all the cases involving a convicted
Claimant are vulnerable to being partially or fully struck out. This is because the usual rule is that
the convictions need to first be overturned in the criminal Courts before proceedings can be
advanced in the Civil courts. However, in light of the ongoing CCRC inquiry we believe that the
Court would be minded to stay (or pause) these claims until that inquiry is complete before taking
a decision on whether to let them proceed or strike them out.
Reduce the exposure
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
POL00006497
POL00006497
5. PROPOSED DIRECTIONS
5.41 In light of the above, it is recommended that Post Office adopts a more sophisticated approach to
the CMC than that proposed by Freeths. The exact scope of the directions cannot yet be set as
these will turn on Freeths' Reply and general attitude to the CMC. However, the broad thrust of
the directions could be along the following lines:
5.1.1 Strike-outs:
(a) Those claims that are procedurally unsustainable are struck out (assuming that
Freeths cannot remedy them before the CMC).
(b) Orders are made for Freeths to provide more information in relation to time-barred
and settled cases. This will allow Post Office to determine the merits of applying
to strike out these claims.
5.1.2 Apreliminary issues trial be ordered on contractual and quantum issues:
(a) The parties agree a list of issues for preliminary determination.
(b) Around 20 cases are selected as Lead Cases for the purpose of addressing the
preliminary issues.
(c) Limited disclosure is given by both sides in relation to these cases. Note — that
the document preservation work done already means that we have many of these
documents in the data room already.
(d) The parties plead out individual pleadings for each Lead Case.
(e) The parties select 5 - 10 Lead Cases to go to trial.
(f) There be another CMC to determine the need for witness evidence and the steps
to trial.
5.1.3 Claim valuation
(a) Orders are made for the Claimants to better value their claims, including
potentially providing medical reports to justify personal injury claims.
5.2 The risk with this approach is that it is very intricate. It may be that the Court simply thinks it too
complicated to implement. This will depend in part on Freeths' attitude. If they are broadly
supportive (and we note that they have already indicated a willingness to discuss preliminary
issues), then this should be achievable. If they contest every point, then this will be a hard sell.
We also repeat the point above about CMCs being a forum for compromise and it may be that
the Court settles on directions somewhere between the parties’ preferred positions.
5.3 The two areas of greatest contention will be:
5.3.1 Disclosure. Our proposed disclosure orders are significantly narrower than what
Freeths want, being limited to only Lead Cases. They will argue that Post Office holds
all the relevant information and this case cannot be holistically addressed until that
information is flushed out.
5.3.2 Horizon. The above proposal does nothing to advance the debate around Horizon.
Given that Horizon is a central issue it could be seen as odd that it is not addressed.
Counsel is particularly concerned about this point and it may be that Post Office will
need to offer something on Horizon (in terms of disclosure, further information and/or
experts).
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
POL00006497
POL00006497
The difficulty with addressing Horizon is that Freeths have no understanding of the
technical aspects of the system. They are therefore not in a position to agree
narrowed down directions in relation to Horizon — they don't know what they don't know
and so have asked for everything. It may be that we have to build in some form of
iterative approach to educating Freeths on the workings of Horizon.
6. RECOMMENDATION
6.1 As noted at the start of this Paper, the situation between now and the CMC is in flux and
predicting the course of events is difficult. A timetable of milestones is set out in Schedule 3.
6.2 It is recommended that Post Office supports the broad thrust of the above strategy, giving Bond
Dickinson instructions to advance these matters with Freeths and delegating to Rodric Williams.
day-to-day authority to manage the detail of these dealings.
6.3 Should events depart materially from the above, then the matter will be brought back to the
Steering Group for further consideration.
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
POL00006497
POL00006497
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED Cord Dickingor
POST OFFICE GROUP LITIGATION
Steering Group Meeting: 11 September 2017
SCHEDULE 1: DESCRIPTION OF COURT PROCESSES.
The procedural steps that may be taken up to trial can vary significantly but certain common actions tend
to be taken in every case. These are summarised below in the order that they are typically undertaken.
1.
11
1.2
1.3
24
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
Pleadings
These are written statements of each party's legal position. Freeths have already prepared a
Generic Particulars of Claim (GPOC) and Post Office has prepared a Generic Defence. Freeths
will shortly lodge a Generic Reply (due 20 September).
It is possible to request Further Information on a party's position in order to clarify points that
are not clear in the pleadings. We have done this previously on a few narrow points in the
GPOC. Freeths have done the same on the Generic Defence.
As this is a Group Action, there may also be further pleadings on individual cases.
Disclosure
Disclosure is the process of locating relevant documents and providing copies to the other
parties. Except for privileged material, all relevant documents need to be disclosed, whether they
support or harm Post Office's position. Determining what is relevant is done by reference to the
issues set out in the pleadings.
The major challenge with disclosure exercises is cost. Modern IT systems store millions of
documents and sifting through these to find relevant ones can be very expensive.
The usual order for disclosure is that a party must undertake a "reasonable and proportionate
search" for relevant documents and the Court takes this requirement very seriously which often
creates the need for a forensic document retrieval exercise. However, the Court has the power
to order disclosure in different ways such as ordering:
2.3.1 disclosure at an earlier or later stage in the litigation process;
2.3.2 iterative disclosure and searching in stages; or
2.3.3 disclosure of particular categories of documents or against particular issues.
By crafting more bespoke and narrower disclosure orders, the costs of disclosure can be
reduced. However, this is often a contentious point and the scope of disclosure can be fiercely
contested.
Witnesses
A key source of information used by a Court is the recollections of those involved in the dispute.
Witnesses give evidence of facts that they witnessed first-hand, often to fill in blanks in document
trails or to explain the provenance of documents that might otherwise be taken out of context.
Witnesses present their evidence by preparing witness statements setting out their recollections
and are then cross-examined in Court at trial.
Witnesses are not allowed to give opinions on technical matters. This is the role of experts.
Experts
Experts are engaged to give opinions on technical issues. They differ from witness in that they
will typically have had no prior involvement in the matters at hand and therefore rely on the facts
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
4.2
4.3
44
45
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.1
POL00006497
POL00006497
found in pleadings, disclosed documents and witness statements. They also have additional
duties to the Court to provide their opinions in a full and transparent manner.
The key issue for expert evidence in this case is whether Horizon is robust or not. This is a
question of opinion not of fact and therefore evidence from a suitability qualified and independent
expert will be required on this question at some stage.
Experts give evidence by producing reports, conferring with the opposing party's expert to agree
common ground where possible and are then cross-examined at trial.
Expert evidence is often very costly. First, high-quality experts charge for their time. Second, the
complex subject matter of an expert's report takes significantly more time to prepare than a
witness statement.
Given this cost, the Court will only order expert evidence where necessary and like to define
tightly the questions on which an expert's opinion is required.
Trial
Having pleaded out each party's case, collated all the relevant documents, captured the evidence
of witnesses and drawn up expert reports, all this evidence will be tested in Court through cross-
examination. Barristers will also make both written and verbal submissions on points of law and
the conclusions that should be drawn from the evidence.
The role of the judge is to determine whose evidence he prefers being weighing up its credibility.
When giving judgment, a Judge will make determinations of fact (where facts are disputed) and
then go on to decide the legal consequences of those facts.
The usual course is for there to be a single trial of all issues in one go. In very large cases the
Court may breakdown the issues into categories and deal with them iteratively through multiple
smaller trials. This is called a split trial or trial of preliminary issues. This route is adopted where
there may be issues which if determined early may:
5.3.1 be addressed with only minimal evidence needed (thereby saving time and cost);
5.3.2 resolve the whole case one way or the other;
5.3.3 set the foundation for other enquiries (eg. sometimes one needs to determine the true
meaning of a contract before deciding on whether the contract has been breached).
5.3.4 reduce the amount of disclosure or evidence needed by disposing of some issues
early; or
5.3.5 allow the Court to make better targeted procedural orders for disclosure and evidence.
Where a preliminary issues trial is ordered, the Court will typically tailor the directions it gives in
relation to disclosure, witnesses and experts so to align with the preliminary issues that have
been selected.
Although this route sounds attractive, it can cause delay and duplication of effort eg. by having to
do two disclosure exercise rather than one. Courts are therefore wary of the potentially
superficial benefits of preliminary issues trials and will need to be convinced of their merit.
Lead Cases
A feature that is specific to Group Litigation is the use a small group of Lead Cases rather than
trying to move forward all cases simultaneously. By selecting a small number of Lead Cases,
disclosure and evidence can be limited to those cases thereby saving timing and cost.
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
POL00006497
POL00006497
6.2 The Court can make decisions on those Lead Cases which should set precedents for all other
cases. The use of Lead Cases however needs to be used with caution as it may be that not all
the cases in the Group Litigation are analogous to the Lead Cases, and a precedent decision will
not be binding on cases that can be factually differentiated from a Lead Case.
6.3 It should be remembered that Group Litigation is not a class action. It is an efficient mechanism
for moving forward many similar cases in a coordinated manner. However, Post Office is still, in
reality, facing 522 individual claims that will ultimately need to be addressed individually on their
facts.
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
POL00006497
POL00006497
SCHEDULE 2: FREETHS' DIRECTIONS
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802
POL00006497
POL00006497
THE POST OFFICE GROUP LITIGATION
Claim No. HQ16X01238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BEFORE Mr Justice Fraser
19 October 2017
BETWEEN:
ALAN BATES & OTHERS
Claimants
>and —
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Defendant
Claimants’ draft ORDER
UPON HEARING Leading Counsel for the Claimants and Leading Counsel for the
Defendant
IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
TRIAL OF PRELIMINARY ISSUE
1. [For the parties and the court to consider in the light of the Generic Defence]
LEAD CASES
2. In respect of the selection of Lead Cases: -
a. By [date], the Claimants’ solicitors and the Defendants solicitors’ shall each
select [20] individual claims which will together form the pool of [40]
Claimants from which Lead Cases will be selected.
b. By [date], the parties do provide standard disclosure of documents relating to
the pool of Claimants identified above.
POL-0017802
POL00006497
POL00006497
c. By [date], the parties do seek to agree [16] Lead Cases from the pool of
Claimants aforesaid. Any disagreement on any question of lead case
selection shall be determined at the next CMC.
d. Further directions in relation to Lead Cases to be given at the next CMC.
DISCLOSURE
3. The Defendant do provide standard disclosure in stages, initially limited to
documents relating to the following matters:
a. the Horizon system architecture (documents which evidence the overarching
systems architecture are obviously essential for our expert to understand the
operation of the Horizon system);
b. bugs, errors or defects in the system which were or may have been the
cause of discrepancies or alleged shortfalls attributed by the Defendant to
any of the Claimants [GPOC §22]
c. the operation of the helpline [§29-30];
d. the conduct of investigations [§31];
e. training policies and practices [§64.1, 65];
f. Post Office suspense account(s) [§38-39].
g. documents delivered up by Second Sight following termination by the
Defendant of Second Sight’s contract for services.
4, In respect of the above documents: -
a. The Defendant do provide disclosure thereof by 4pm on [date].
b. By 4pm on [date], the Claimants must make any request to inspect the
original of, or to provide a copy of, any such document.
c. Any such request, unless objected to in writing, must be complied with within
14 days of the request.
d. Disclosure of electronic documents shall be in accordance with the protocols
to be agreed beween the parties.
POL-0017802
POL00006497
POL00006497
EXPERT EVIDENCE
5, Each party has permission to adduce expert evidence of an IT expert in in relation to
the operation and accuracy of the Horizon system (“IT expert evidence”).
6. [Agreement for initial inspection and testing by IT Expert]
7. Prior to the next CMC, the parties shall co-operate and seek to agree further
Directions in relation to expert evidence (including the number and disciplines
thereof, issues which they will address, and any appropriate or necessary tests,
inspections, sampling or investigations).
NEXT CMC
8. There be a further CMC on [date] 2018.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
9, At all stages the parties must consider settling this litigation by any means of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (including Mediation); any party not engaging in any
such means proposed by another must serve a witness statement giving reasons
within 21 days of that proposal; such witness statement must not be shown to the
trial judge until questions of costs arise.
CUT OFF DATE
10. [To discuss whether the cut-off date for claims to be entitled to be entered onto the
Group Register be should be extended.]
COSTS MANAGEMENT
11. The parties regularly report their costs to each other and to the Court, as they pass
the following milestones: £500,000, £750,000, £1 million and any increment of
£250,000 thereafter.
cOsTs
12. Costs of this CMC be [costs in the case].
13. Costs of the Defendant's Application dated 26 July 2016, reserved by the Consent
Order dated [8 February 2017], be [costs in the case].
POL-0017802
SCHEDULE 3: TIMETABLE
POL00006497
POL00006497
Deadlines set by the Court and which are immovable are in red
Date
Action
Mon 11 Sept
Steering Group meeting to consider general CMC strategy.
wic 11 September
e Prepare Post Office's proposed directions and a draft letter to
Freeths (to be sent after the Reply is received).
« Scope out witness evidence needed to support our directions so
that BD can begin preparing it.
e Draw up any strike out applications (if any)
Wed 20 Sept
Generic Reply due from Freeths
Thurs 21 / Fri 22
e Possible Steering Group meeting to update on current position.
¢ Finalise Post Office's draft directions and send to Freeths for
comment.
Mon 25 / Tues 26 / Wed 27
Prepare draft Skeleton Argument for use at the CMC.
Friday 29
Proposed deadline for Freeths to respond to Post Office's draft
directions.
wic 2 October
e Finalise Skeleton Argument and Witness Statement
e Possible further correspondence with Freeths
Wed 4 October
Steering Group meeting to approve final CMC strategy
Thurs 5 October
Costs statements to be exchanged
Mon 9 October
Deadline for Case Summary, draft Directions and Skeleton
Arguments to be filed with the Court
Wed 11 October
CMC bundle to be filed with the Court
Mon 16 October — Wed 18
October
Counsel under brief preparing for CMC
Thurs 19 October
CMC (1 day)
4A_36801429_1
POL-0017802