POL00041270
POL00041270
Message
From: Rodric Williams’.
Sent: 25/08/2016 09:19:38
To: Lukas, Elisa [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Elisa Lukasd54]
cc: Parsons, Andrew [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=First Administrative Group/cn=Recipients/cn=ap6]; Prime, Amy [/O=BOND
PEARCE/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Amy Prime439]
Subject: RE: Group action: transfer to Commercial Court [BD-4A.FID26896945]
Thanks Elisa.
The advice is noted. This line action can now be closed.
There is no need to prepare a decision paper for the Steering Group given the issue is purely legal/procedural.
Thanks again, Rod
From: Lukas, Elisa f
Sent: 25 August 2016 10:13
To: Rodric Williams
Cc: Parsons, Andrew; Prime, Amy
Subject: Group action: transfer to Commercial Court [BD-4A.FID26896945]
Rod
We have considered the chances of success of an application to transfer the group action to the Commercial Court from
the Queen's Bench Division (QBD) and do not consider that the merits justify it.
Under CPR 30.5 the Court can order the transfer of proceedings to another division however it is Southern
Rock Insurance Company Ltd v Brightside Group Ltd that is the authority on the appropriate considerations when deciding
whether a case should be transferred to a specialist court. In Southern Rock, it was made clear that it is the subject
matter of the case that is the most important consideration when deciding which Court should hear the claim, with other
matters such as expedition and costs being secondary.
In the group action, the subject matter is the status of postmasters' contracts, and the need (or otherwise) to imply certain
duties and terms into those contracts. Having reviewed CPR 58.1 (which sets out the expertise of the Commercial Court)
and QBD guide para 1.5.4 (which sets out the expertise of the QBD), whilst the Commercial Court has the more detailed
working knowledge of financial systems, both Courts have expertise in breach of contract claims and the group action falls
within the remit of both Courts.
There are arguments that the Commercial Court would be preferable from a case management perspective, such as that
it has a more tailored process for listing applications (which will be useful in the group action where there may be many
applications) and that Commercial Court judges are better versed in e-disclosure, however the QBD has more experience
with group litigation orders (GLOs). In any event, these arguments will be secondary to the primary consideration of
whether the subject matter is such that the Commercial Court is significantly more suitable than the QBD.
On the basis that both Courts have the expertise to deal with the subject matter of the group action, it would be difficult to
persuade a judge that the Commercial Court would be significantly more suitable than the QBD on secondary case
management benefits alone. We therefore do not consider that the merits of an application to transfer justify the costs of
making it. If you still want to consider making an application to transfer, I can prepare a decision paper for the steering
group, otherwise please let me know if this email will suffice to close the point.
Kind regards,
Elisa
Elisa Lukas
Solicitor
POL-0037752
POL00041270
POL00041270
www.bonddickinson.com
JESS SIO IO ISOS IO SIO SDIOSISIDIOSO SOROS TOISAS SRI OSIO CI IORI IIIT
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.
2A FR RRR FF RA 0 0 0 OR 0A 0 OR EGO 0 0 CCGG G0
POL-0037752