POL00022883
POL00022883
Message
From: Tom Beezer i
Sent:
To:
cc:
‘odric William GRO): amy Prime
Subject: RE: Post Office Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Attachments: 4852_001.pdf; PO - Recusal.pdf; AGQCconf'note18-3-2019.docx
Jane, all
Lord Grabiner Note of Conference of 18'" March 2019:
See attached. Jane, this is my note based on your notes (thanks for the PDF) and my own notes. This is a formatted
version of what was said. I have sought to make the note a more "normal" note of a con’ but some very strident comments
were made by Lord Grabiner (in your favour). I attach the draft now so you can circulate it if you wish. You and I have a
level of confidence that we captured accurately what was said to us so I think it is capable of circulation as a draft. What
was said was quite stark and simple, hence the note being quite short. In terms of getting it blessed by Lord Grabiner, I
have sent the note to Gideon for his comments and (if possible) an "OK" from Lord Grabiner this morning.
The note is the Word Doc' attached. The PDFs are the Lord Neuberger note and the DCQC note. Once finalised I will
have all 3 made into one PDF so it stands as one document as each refers to, and in integral to, the other (hence my
attaching the PDFs again here).
Documents needed for recusal application:
For a recusal application the moving parts are:
- Application Notice — draft has been done.
- Draft Order — draft has been done.
- Letter to Freeths to put on notice and serve — to be done. This is a short piece of work.
- Draft witness statement in support — large work stream. Early draft is in circulation as of late last night. This
is substantially underway. The witness statement is essentially a central repository and record of "who said
what" on trial sequencing, disclosure and scope of CIT in historic hearings to show this Judge has gone way
beyond what he said he would do, and then criticises POL for sticking to the rules he set up.
- Skeleton Argument — an update from Gideon on this is that "/ spent much of [yesterday] drafting it with
AGQC. We are well advanced - and anyway we will obviously not be putting this in with the application
notice."
Possible gs.
Looking at the above list of moving parts I think that (if POL Board say "go") we could be in a position to serve the
Application Notice on Thursday. That service of the Application Notice on the Court and Freeths is a private matter and it
would not become public (save for potential leaks/briefings) until the Application was heard. As to when it could be heard,
Gideon comments:
“{Hearing] Won't be Friday, because it will be contested and the other side will want to put in a skeleton argument.
I think back end of next week would be the very earliest. [And in a further e mail] The immediate question to
consider, following discussion with AGQC (cc’ed), is whether we should be putting in a WS at all. Interested to
know what others' views are on that. If not, I think we will have to beef up the Application Notice a bit to spell out
our key contentions, at least by listing the areas in which the Judge made improper findings.
So there are still pieces moving around as to scope and format on witness statement verses Application Notice etc but
what I take from the above is as follows:
- If Post Office Board say "yes" then we will be serving an Application this week.
- There will be no hearing on the recusal this week.
- — Itis likely that the Judge will make time in his diary next week (being "Brexit Week" at the Courts, so the
Horizon Trial is paused anyway) to hear this matter.
- _ Itis likely he will refuse to recuse himself and I think it unlikely he will adjourn the Horizon Trial of his own
volition.
POL-0019362
POL00022883
POL00022883
- Weill then seek an appeal of the refusal to recuse to the Court of Appeal on an urgent basis and that could
be in week commencing 1% April, although the further out we go the less firm my predictions are.
The caveat here is that I have Andy's warnings ringing in my ears that this Judge makes some odd orders and it is not
beyond him to make some strange orders as to timing and sequencing. With that in mind I have alerted the Clerks at OEC
to be all over the listing of any hearing issue to make sure (so far as is humanly possible) that any hearing of the
Application for recusal happens when Lord Grabiner is free to attend Court. We cannot guarantee that, but we can do all
in our collective power to make it happen and I am onto that issue.
One point to be aware of is privilege. Here we do have Litigation Privilege in existence (for the obvious reason...there
is ongoing lit'...!) but please do make sure that your interaction with people in the business (outside the client group) and
with (say) UKGI is for the dominant purpose of the litigation. That is a vitally important point as we cannot lose
privilege in these documents.
All comments gratefully received.
Tom Beezer
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
Join us for Disrupting Disputes 2.0
20 March 2079 at the British Library
Book your piace here
. \ WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
/ BOND —
DICKINSON @) (in)
From: Jane MacLeod!
Sent: 19 March 2019 20:05
To: Tom Beezer
Cc: Andrew Parsons; Rodric Williams; Amy Prime
Subject: FW: Post Office Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Tom
See correspondence below from the UKGI GC requesting:
e Update on proposed timing ~ could we get an update on readiness please - that is tomorrow morning can we
say whether we'll be ready to serve immediately/ Thursday /later? And
e Written advice frorn LGQC by way of confirmation of our con yesterday.
Many thanks,
Jane
Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Lega, Risk & Governance
POL-0019362
POL00022883
POL00022883
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
ECZY 9AQ
Mobile number:
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 19 March 2019 20:00
To: 'Watson, Richard - UKGI'
Cc: Cooper, Tom - UKGI <
Subject: RE: Post Office Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Thanks Richard
Our advice is that the application should be made this week. Ideally if we approve it tomorrow, then {I think) the earliest
timing is as follows:
* the application would be served on the claimants and the judge on Thursday
application to be heard on Friday.
At that point the judge could accept and recuse himself, reject the application (in which case we would appeal) , or he
might ask to consider it over the weekend and/or suggest another judge hears the application. Counsels’ view is that he
will say ‘no’ either immediately or after consideration.
So, the point at which it would become public is definitely at the hearing, and potentially earlier following service of the
notice of the application on the Claimants (if they choose to make it public) - so Thursday on the above timetable.
{ will get confirmation on the state readiness and recommended timing for the calls for tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Jane
Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legai, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
From: Watson, Richard - UKGI [_
Sent: 19 March 2019 19:50
To: Jane MacLeod 4.
Cc: Cooper, Tom - UKGI
Subject: Re: Post Office Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Jane
If a decision to make the application is made tomorrow when do you think the application will be lodged with
the court, and presumably the claimants at the same time - good to understand when it would become public?
Kind regards
POL-0019362
POL00022883
POL00022883
Richard
rodric.williams
Cc: Tom.Coope:
Subject: Re: Post Office Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Jane
Thanks for the call earlier. As discussed I think it is essential that the board have the clearest possible advice on
the recusal application and its merits from Lord Grabiner in writing. It needn't be long, could refer to Lord
Neuberger's advice and could be a note approved by him.
kind regards
Richard
Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device
From: Richard.Watso
Sent: 19 March
To: jane.macle
Cc: Tom.Cooper,__ GRO
Subject: Re: Post Office Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
I rodric.williams, GRO I
Jane
I understand from Tom that Neuberger's advice is to the effect that if POL want to appeal on procedural
unfairness then they must make a recusal application. Is the legal advice being updated in advance of
tomorrow's board meeting to reflect this? Does Lord Grabiner agree with Neuberger's advice? So far the
lawyers appear to say the prospects of success are "reasonable". Is Counsel willing to express that in percentage
terms?
Sorry for the questions but it will help handling at our end to have a clearer understanding of what legal advice
the board are being given regarding recusal and what the prospects of success are
Happy to discuss. I'm on, .
Kind regards
Richard
From: jane.macleod GRO
Sent: 18 March 2010 8:57-5%5.
To: Richard.Watsor GRO
Cc: Tom.Cooper¢™
Subject: RE: Post Officé Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
rodric. williams
Thanks for the clarification Richard ~ my apologies if I misunderstood.
POL-0019362
POL00022883
POL00022883
I will separately forward over the relevant information.
Kind regards,
Jane
Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile numbe
From: Watson, Richard - UKGI I"
Sent: 18 March 2019 09:49 I
To: Jane MacLeod <jane.macleod
Ce: Cooper, Tom - UKGI <Tom.Cooperi
Subject: RE: Post Office Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL ‘AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Rodric Williams
Jane
Tom has forwarded your below email.
As I explained when we spoke, the concern from our end is HMG being seen as not upholding the independence
and integrity of the judiciary, hence the concern about Tom making a decision as a Director of POL on whether
to make a recusal application. However, it is perfectly proper that Tom, as a director, should to ensure the Board
fully realised the seriousness of what was proposed including the impact on the shareholder (and the difficulties
POL-0019362
POL00022883
POL00022883
of distinguishing between strategic direction and operational matters in Parliament and the media) as well as the
wider litigation strategy, that the Board had taken and properly considered legal advice, and finally has reflected
properly on whether there was bias or (painful as it is) inferences/findings drawn ultimately properly from
hearing the evidence expressed in pithy and robust language. In supporting Tom I would like to receive the
information relating to the recusal issues.
Apologies if I suggested otherwise in our call.
Happy to discuss
Kind regards
Richard
Richard WatsonIGeneral Counsel
UK Government Investments
1 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET
W: https://www.ukgi.org.uk/
POL-0019362
POL00022883
POL00022883
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 8:32:12 AM
To: Thomas Cooper
Ce: Rodric Williams
Subject: Post Office Litigation - CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Tom
Please find attached the note referred to.
In my call with Richard on Friday, he gave me the impression that the UKGI legal team would
not want to be seen to have received the information relating to the Recusal issues. To that end I
have not provided any of the advice to him. If that position has changed, would you please ask
him to let me know?
Kind regards,
Jane
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify the sender
and delete the email. This footnote also confirms that our email communications may be monitored to ensure
the secure and effective operation of our systems and for other lawful purposes, and that this email has been
swept for malware and viruses.
2A I FFF RRR I ACCA RR RF A000 0 oR C010 0 OR OR CK 08 OR OR CCGG GG
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
POL-0019362
POL00022883
POL00022883
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.
22 a ee oe 2 3 ae ie 2s 2k a fe ae 2c 2 a ae aie ae 2 ae af 2c 2c 2 ai eae oe of ae ae 2c ole oi ak ae oie oft a ae afc aie oie 2 ai ae 2c aie a ae ae ae ofc ai ak ae ae aft ak ae ale aie oie ae ak a aie
“Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found
on our website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy”
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
POL-0019362