POL00006520
POL00006520
Message
From:
Sent: 04/02/2018 14:32
To: Rodric Williams { ndrew Parsons is
Underwood! fF” Thomas P Moran Mark R
Davies ‘GRO. 3 rfield f
Subject: FW: Postmaster Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD.
See below for information.
Kind regards,
Jane
® Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number{
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 04 February 2018 14:32
To: Tim Parker
‘Ken McCall" Carla Stent
Gs Tom ‘Cooper
; ‘Paula Vennells
lisdair Cameron
Subject: Postmaster Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
All
As flagged at the Board last Monday, there was a further procedural hearing on Friday morning. For reasons to do with
Court scheduling, we had less time than expected and accordingly there will now be a further hearing at the end of
February. Nevertheless we were pleased with the outcome of the hearing:
1. Disclosure
- The Court (Mr Justice Fraser) granted the orders for disclosure in the terms that we sought and made clear that
while Freeths may seek further disclosure, any such request must be a properly focussed request, rather than a
‘fishing expedition’ at our expense.
- In adopting this course, the Judge seemed to indicate that his approach to contractual construction was more
likely to follow the orthodox/conventional approach to contract law which we have been advancing, which limits
the evidence that the court can consider when construing a contract.
2. Issues of Fact
- The Judge also ordered the parties to set out between now and early April the issues of fact required for the
November 2018 trial. This was a “win” for us in that we have been requesting this from Freeths for some time.
3. March 2019 Trial and Beyond
POL-0017825
POL00006520
POL00006520
- The March 2019 hearing has not been vacated, despite both side’s barristers explaining the difficulties with it.
- The judge wishes the parties to use the hearing to address Horizon related issues, however these will not relate
to any individual’s claim. We are considering the implications of this, but on first impression consider it positive
given that it should focus on objective aspects of Horizon (e.g. the technical basis on which it records and stores
transaction data), rather than subjective matters (e.g. user experience and support).
- AMarch 2019 trial will however create significant administrative challenges for the parties, as the preparations
for the two, large trials will overlap.
4. Security for Costs
- There was no discussion about security for costs due to the constrained time.
5. Next Steps
- A further hearing will be held on 22 February 2018 which will consider:
othe Horizon issues which could go to trial in March 2019 and any loose ends with disclosure.
othe timetable for the Lead Claimants’ trial, which the Judge wants to schedule for Autumn 2019.
- The hearing could also consider timetabling for the security for costs application, assuming it is filed by 22
February 2018. We propose to advise Therium and Freeths this week of our intention to see k security for costs.
As also discussed at the Board we will schedule a series of sub-Committee meetings to coincide with the key upcoming
decision points, and ensure that the Committee is apprised of, and supportive of the strategy.
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Kind regards,
Jane
® Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile numbe:
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 02 February 2018 18:37 oo
To: 'Paula Vennells! GRO } Alisdair Cameron
H GRO i
Cc: Mark R Davies GRO Melanie Corfield
i Rodric Williams! GRO. } Mark Underwood
( GRO i
Subject: Postmaster Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
Paula, Al
Set out below is a summary of the outcome of this morning’s CMC. I attended the hearing as I wanted to see for myself
what the judge was like and how our ‘new’ 2" QC — David Cavendar, performed. My view was that we ‘won’ in that we
achieved the orders we sought (more limited disclosure ahead of the November hearing), and the judge was pretty clear
that the applicants needed to be reasonable in their approach to the litigation. I thought David performed well —
although the conventions of the Court proceedings meant that he was responding to arguments, rather than taking the
lead.
POL-0017825
POL00006520
POL00006520
Overall, the judge was balanced and not minded to entertain the ‘fishing expedition’ approach adopted by the QC for
the applicants. The judge is very keen to move the proceedings along as quickly as possible — he made it very plain to
both parties that he expected at least one hearing on substantive matters in March 2019 (which will be extremely
challenging), and ideally a further hearing in Autumn 2019.
There were no criticisms of Post Office, although I have no doubt that the headlines will be ‘PO is ordered to disclose
documents’. Mark and Mel are on standby for any press coverage.
Due to time constraints (we didn’t get as much Court time as had been indicated) there will be a further hearing in late
February on disclosure and other (material) procedural matters. We also believe that we should proceed with the
application for security for costs — and this is even more important given the requirement for a second hearing in March,
and possibly a third in late 2019. The estimate of £9m for costs flagged to the Board assumes this 2™ hearing.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss. I will send a slightly modified version of this note (and the summary
below) to the Board later tonight.
Kind regards,
Jane
® Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 02 February 2018 15:36
To: Jane MacLeodi GRO, } Thomas P Moran {- — ans
Cc: Mark Underwood1 } Andrew Parsons ¢_ GRO >
Subject: Postmaster Group Litigation - Disclosure CMC Skeleton Arguments - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT
FORWARD
Jane, Tom,
I summarise below this morning’s Case Management Conference (CMC) before Mr Justice Fraser (MJF):
1. Disclosure
- MIF preferred our approach to disclosure, making it clear that Freeths will need to make a properly focussed
request if they want to go beyond the disclosure we offered to provide.
- To mix metaphors, this should prevent Freeths going on a fishing expedition, at our expense, in search of a
“smoking gun”.
- In adopting this course, MJF seemed to prefer the orthodox/conventional approach to contract law that we had
been advancing, which limits the evidence that the court can consider when construing a contract.
2. Issues of Fact
- MIF also ordering the parties to set out between now and early April the issues of fact required for the
November 2018 trial.
POL-0017825
POL00006520
POL00006520
- This was a “win” for us. Freeths has consistently refused to do this since we first asked for it in November 2017
(indeed, we were criticised for asking for it in the Claimants’ Skeleton Argument) but will now have to articulate
the factual basis on which they base the claim, rather than continue to rely on their “generic” pleadings.
3. March 2019 Trial and Beyond
- The March 2019 hearing has not been vacated, despite both side’s barristers explaining the difficulties with it.
- Instead, MJF directed the parties to agree the Horizon issues in the case which can be tried in March 2019. He
made it clear that he would choose the issues if the parties did not.
- I MJF also made it clear that these issues could not relate to any individual’s claim.
- Weare considering the implications of this, but on first impression consider it positive given that it should focus
on objective aspects of Horizon (e.g. the technical basis on which it records and stores transaction data), rather
than subjective matters (e.g. user experience and support).
- AMarch 2019 trial will however create significant administrative challenges for the parties, as the preparations
for the two, large trials will overlap.
4. Security for Costs
- There was no discussion about security for costs at the CMC.
5. Next Steps
- The CMC was adjourned, to come back before MJF on 22 February 2018.
- That hearing will consider the Horizon issues which could go to trial in March 2019 and any loose ends with
disclosure.
- The hearing is also likely to consider a timetable for the Lead Claimants’ trial, which MJF wants to schedule for
Autumn 2019.
- The hearing could also consider timetabling for the security for costs application, assuming it is filed by 22
February 2018.
6. Overall Impressions
- The hearing today went well for us.
- MIF recognises that this is large and complex litigation, but is committed to moving it forward at pace, hence
his insistence on keeping the March 2019 trial dates, and foreshadowing further hearing time in Autumn 2019.
Please let me know if you require anything further.
Kind regards, Rod
5 Rodric Williams
Head of Legal - Dispute Resolution & Brand
20 Finsbury
2017 Winner of the Global Postal Award for Customer
Experience
2A 4 2K 28 Rf FF RR Rf 12828 2 2 Fk 28 2 2 13 28 2 BR 8 2 a
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you
have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
POL-0017825
POL00006520
POL00006520
POL-0017825