POL00024165
POL00024165
Message
From: Mark Underwood
Sent: 01/02/2018 20:36:
To: _Andrew.Parsons ‘odric Williams I
beeen GRO
cc: Amy Prime [.
Subject: Re: Tomorrow's Hearing
By delaying discussion regarding the lead cases trial and associated disclosure - does that not then open us up to being
derailed by being drawn into RFI discussions that we wanted to avoid?
Mark Underwood
Head of Portfolio: Legal, Risk & Governance
Cc: Amy Prime
Subject: Re: Tomorrow's Hearing
It’s the hearing schedule. It’s really unusual to be on at 9:15 which makes David think we are being squeezed in and
judges tend to behave badly when under time pressure.
Also, this was all instigated by Patrick Green, not us. It would not look good if the Cs are trying to make the judges life
easier and we’re opposing that.
A
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:17 PM +0000, "Mark Underwooderos
? wrote:
Thanks Andy,
David has previously expressed confidence that the judge would not throw his weight around with him - why
the sudden worry, the night before?
Mark Underwood
: Legal, Risk & Governance
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Wombie Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
POL-0020644
POL00024165
POL00024165
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
From: Andrew Parsons:
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 8:
To: Rodric Williams; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood!
Ce: Amy Prime -
Subject: Tomorrow's Hearing
:25 PM
Rodric, Jane, Mark
Counsel have been speaking (always a dangerous thing!). They are worried that the Judge will be grumpy tomorrow
because he has an urgent and difficult hearing after ours to do with HS2. They therefore want to streamline our hearing.
The plan is to:
e Move all discussion about a Lead Cases trial and related disclosure to another CMC in a couple of weeks.
e Counsel will ask the Judge to give his views on the general principles that underpin disclosure for the Common
Issues trial (eg. should factual matrix be wide or narrow? should we use Model D or Model C?).
e — The parties will then go away and draw up the final orders within 7 days, failing which we will go back to Court to
deal with the detail of the Orders.
I'm nervous about this approach because Freeths have always been very difficult when it comes to drawing up Orders
after hearings. I therefore have little hope that we will reach agreement and strongly suspect we will be back in Court
(and in front of a very grumpy Judge). However, if we can get the judge to say factual matrix should be limited and he
prefers Model C, that would be a good result for us.
Counsel have however been able to agree some wording for Part 1 of Stage 2 Disclosure which means that there is one
less point of dispute for tomorrow.
See you tomorrow.
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
womblebonddickinson.com
DICKINSON bd ©
§
print this
POL-0020644
POL00024165
POL00024165
ACR RR 2 fA RRR A A AR RR A A RR RR A ER RA A AON NI A ACC GR GR
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.
HEC 2K 2 ff 2 2 ff 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 R28 a
POL-0020644