POL00040331
POL00040331
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Background Information
Applicant details Claim no. M046
Name Siobhan Sayer
Branch Erpingham Post Office
Loss position Branch loss £18,997.60
Date of loss January 2008 (but likely to have been accruing
before that date)
Debt position £14,117.60 — Applicant was ordered to pay a
confiscation penalty of £4,880
Consequential losses £4,880 — repayment of money paid to POL
claimed
£1,500 — reimbursement of legal fees for
criminal case
Unquantified — legal advisors fees
Unquantified but £3,600 taken as likely sum in
light of salary claimed (limited to three months) —
loss of salary
£15,000 — forced sale of cars therefore at an
undervalue
£120,000 — additional mortgage costs
£60,000 — inability to re-mortgage due to
conviction
Contract / termination I SPMR/employee/ other I SPMR
position
Former or current Former
SPMR?
Termination route Terminated
Termination date 18 January 2008
Applicant position Bankrupt / IVA? No.
Prosecuted? Yes
Outcome of criminal Convicted of fraud contrary to Section 1 of the
prosecution Fraud Act 2006
Sentence: 40 weeks' imprisonment, suspended
for 18 months; and 200 hours community
service.
Civil proceedings? Yes — claim issued to protect against 6 year
48_20718815_1 1
POL00040331
POL00040331
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Crnd Dideingow
limitation deadline but currently stayed.
High profile media / MP
case?
N/A
Professional advisor
Howe & Co. (John Walker)
48_20718815_1
POL00040331
POL00040331
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Crnd Dideingow
Bond Dickinson Legal Analysis
Legal risk adjusted claim value
£0
Legal analysis of branch losses
Legal factor Legal risk Legal risk
(0% = no risk adjusted
to POL) I claim value
Claim value £14,117.60
Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal 100% £14,117.60
proceedings cannot be brought against POL?
No — proceedings issued but not resolved yet.
Responsibility for loss. 0% £0
No evidence of failure in Horizon or POL procedures.
POL conclusion is that loss caused in branch.
The most likely cause of the loss is operator error / theft by the Applicant
and/or his staff and based on the evidence currently available to the
parties there is no risk of Post Office being found responsible for the
direct losses in this case.
However, false accounting means that the Applicant is liable for the loss
of cash as she was Post Office's agent.
Other legal issues n/a £0
None
48_20718815_1 3
POL00040331
POL00040331
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Crnd Dideingow
Legal analysis of consequential losses resulting from termination
£0
Legal factor Legal risk (0% = I Legal risk
no risk to POL) adjusted
claim
value
Value of claim based on Applicant's figures £204,980
Are the claimed consequential losses recoverable at law? 100% £204,980
Financial losses arising from termination could be recoverable if proven —
see below.
Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal 100% I £204,980
proceedings cannot be brought against POL?
Possibly — see additional notes.
Is there the possibility of an unlawful termination claim because the 100% £204,980
Applicant's contract was not terminated on 3 months’ notice?
Yes — summary termination.
Was contract termination unlawful? 0% £0
No evidence to suggest that the contract termination was unlawful.
The Applicant's contract was terminated on the basis that they no longer
had control on the premises they proposed to operate from. In addition,
the Applicant has been convicted of fraud. In light of these the
contractual basis for termination appears to be justified and therefore
there would be no loss.
Is there evidence that the Applicant could have "sold" his / her 0% £0
branch as a going concern if given 3 months' notice?
No
Suitability for mediation
This case is not suitable for mediation as there is no evidence to substantiate the Applicant's claims.
Second Sight agrees with this view, but makes the recommendation to mediate on the basis of the mis-
advice and difficulty resolving the issues. We have asked Second Sight to review their recommendation.
Additional Notes
The Applicant's claim for unlawful termination is now over 6 years old as his termination took effect in
February 2008. Usually a person is barred under the Limitation Act from commencing proceedings on
this type of claim where it is more than 6 years old.
However, Post Office has already commenced Court proceedings against the Applicant to recover the
outstanding debt. It would therefore be open to the Applicant to bring a counterclaim in those
proceedings for unlawful termination. For limitation purposes, the date on which that unlawful
termination claim was deemed to commence would be the date of when POL issued the original Court
48_20718815_1 1
POL00040331
POL00040331
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Crnd Dideingow
Proceedings. These Court proceedings were commenced within the 6 year time bar period and so the
unlawful termination claim would not be time barred on this basis.
However, to issue a counterclaim, the Applicant needs to show that the counterclaim is related to, or
arises out of the same set of facts that are pleaded in, Post Office's original claim. If not, then the
Applicant will need to issue new separate Court proceedings which would be time barred.
Our view is that the Court is likely, but not certain, to allow the Applicant to issue a counterclaim in the
current proceedings initiated by POL and that the unlawful termination claim is therefore not time barred.
Bond Dickinson contact
Name: Andy Pheasant
Tel: i he
Email: andrew.pheasant)
Advice qualifications
1. This advice has been produced by applying the principles set out in the Advice from Linklaters dated
20 March 2014.
2. No further legal analysis of the underlying legal principles has been carried out, in particular we
have not considered any other possible legal bases for the Applicant's claims including without
limitation malicious prosecution, defamation, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence, tortious
causes of action or privacy law.
3. We have not analysed the possibility that failures by Post Office in training or supporting the
Applicant, or subsequently investigating losses, may have contributed to the Applicant's ability to
prevent losses in branch.
4. Our advice is based on only the information in the Applicant's Case Questionnaire Response, the
Post Office Investigation Report and Second Sight's Case Review Reports. Our advice does not
factor in the possibility of further information being available at a later date that may change our
analysis.
5. We have not considered the Applicant's appetite or capacity to bring proceedings against POL or
any of the "other" factors set out in the settlement mandate.
6. We have applied a de minis threshold to legal risk. Where the legal risk is very small (less than
20%) we have recorded this as 0% in our analysis.
48_20718815_1 5
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Post Office Settlement Mandate
Legal risk adjusted claim value
£0
Other settlement factors
POL00040331
POL00040331
Crnd Dideingow
Factor Adjustment Adjusted
settlement
threshold
Legal risk adjusted claim value £0
Actual cost of settlement to POL
Costs of mediation, plus any cash payment to the Applicant.
Other admissions of fault by POL
None.
PR / media implications
We are not aware of any special PR / media issues related to this case.
Applicant expectations / experience from any previous negotiations
Unknown
Criminal case — need to protect safety of convictions
Pleaded guilty and convicted of fraud. No new evidence to call the safety
of the conviction into question.
Risk of future litigation / court costs
Applicant's only option at this stage is to seek to overturn the criminal
conviction on the basis of new evidence that was not available at the time
of the criminal trial. There is a risk she may attempt to do this.
Cost savings through early settlement
None as mediation is not recommended.
Other factors
Mandated financial settlement range
Alternative / additional non-financial settlement proposals that can be offered
Other matters
48_20718815_1
POL00040331
POL00040331
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Crnd Dideingow
Approved for mediation
Post Office Approval
Name: Date:
48_20718815_1 7