POL00023656
POL00023656
Message
From: Amy Prime [/O=EXCHANGE-ORG/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=AB7222DDA3A9453EAED5751238A59562-AMY PRIME]
Sent:
To: ; Andrew Parsons [/o=Exchange-Org/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=ad9ed344815e47e4aaa3c0e7e1740919-Andrew Pars]; Rodric Williams
— ~ : Massey, Kirsten {
Henderson, Tom
cc: Tom Beezer [/o=Exchange-Org/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=179d9f227294473d81b50e72aacb0623-Tom Beezer]
Subject: RE: Cover letter [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Attachments: RE: Cover letter [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Ben
Please find attached Helen Davies QC's response to the two below queries, along with a revised covering letter.
We will set up a cail for during the course of tomorrow between Roadfic, you, Counsel, HSF and WBD to discuss the
approach to be taken (we will liaise with Di and Tom H to find a suitable time).
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Prime
Associate
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Manage your e-alert preferences
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND (S\ ®
DICKINSON W) tin)
From: Ben Foat
Sent: 25 June 20. :
To: Andrew Parsons; Rodric Williams; Watts, Alan; Massey, Kirsten; Henderson, Tom
Cc: Tom Beezer; Amy Prime
Subject: RE: Cover letter [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Thanks Andy
I think a call would be helpful. My initial view is that if we can justify that our appeal meets the test / guidance for
requesting 3 justices (because of its public importance; impact to 11,500 contracts) then we can make the request for 3
justices (but not on the basis of Coulsons links to Fraser). le I would remove the square brackets.
Can I understand:
POL-0020135
POL00023656
POL00023656
i. Who makes the decision as to whether 3 judges will hear the appeal. if its Coulson and we can’t appeal or
review that decision then we need to take out the square brackets. This is likely to infuriate him.
2. The reasons why we think the information in the brackets is necessary. We are basically suggesting perceived
bias and we need 3 judges as a result because we don’t trust him. We would need to have more evidence than
what is there. Given his recusal judgment findings we are likely to alienate him further.
As It does go against the new strategy, my sense is that Helen Davies would need to explain to the Board sub-committee
for the letter including the information contained in the brackets. That said, it is important and welcomed that she has
provided her independent view from a different set of chambers.
HSF — thoughts?
Kind regards
Ben
® Ben Foat
General
Counsel
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury
Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Highly
Commended for Mobile:
‘Excellence In-
house’ at the Law
Society
Excellence
Awards 2018
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.
From: Andrew Parsonsi_.
Sent: 25 June 2019 17:06
To: Ben Foat
Rodric Williams <7 “} Watts, Alan
Cc: Tom Beezer i. Amy Prime ¢.
Subject: FW: Cover letter [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
All
Please see below and attached from Helen Davies about how the revised appeal could be presented to the CA on
Friday. This proposal was unprompted by the lawyers; Helen has reached this view of her own volition.
May we have a quick call to discuss this and if / how to pass this on to Al / the board sub-committee?
Kind regards
Andy
POL-0020135
POL00023656
POL00023656
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
~GRO-
Manage your e-alert preferences
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BRINSON @) (in)
I
From: Helen Davies {__ GRO
Sent: 25 June 2019 16:04
To: Andrew Parsons.
Cc: Owain Draper
Subject: Cover lett:
Amy Prime
Gideon Cohen {~~
Dear Andy,
In light of the terms of Coulson U’s Order of last week I have been revisiting in my mind the question of whether there is
anything we can or should be doing to seek to ensure that the permission application is not finally determined by
Coulson LJ sitting alone. Whilst I am very aware that I previously expressed the view that we should proceed on the basis
that he will be objective in relation to the permission application notwithstanding the background, I have to confess that
I was surprised by both the content and also the tone of the Order and in light thereof I think we should revisit this issue.
As we previously discussed there is in fact limited opportunity in the rules to achieve that outcome but there is provision
in CPR 52.(2) and (3) which can enable a direction for an oral hearing in an appropriate case and moreover which can be
directed to be heard by a panel comprising judges other than the just the original single LJ. I have revisited in my mind
the question therefore of whether we want to refer to this provision. I attach a draft letter which would accompany the
revised Skeleton which seeks to do so in a way which doesn’t undermine the strength of the application.
There is an obvious risk to this course in that Coulson LJ could be further driven by it to seek to finds ways to refuse the
application — but equally on the premise that risk already exists this seems to me at least potentially to be a way of
seeking best to protect Post Office’s interests. You will see how I have sought to refer to the potential link between
Coulson LJ and Fraser J in what seems to me to be the most neutral terms and hence least potentially inflammatory. If
this is going to be copied to the Master of the Rolls as I think it should be I think we probably need to include something
along this line to get him thinking that he should take an interest.
I therefore attach a draft for consideration and no doubt discussion.
Best wishes
Helen
POL-0020135
POL00023656
POL00023656
authorised and regu
2 SR 8 A SS 8 8 2 A SS SD EO AS SC A 2 ESO SS IS SD I ES OS OS CS RE A OS IS EC CR OR
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.
AR RR RR fA RR RI AR BRR Rf A A RR RR OO RR GR BR
“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”
POL-0020135