POL00041510
POL00041510
FREETHS
Bond Dickinson LLP Direct dial
DX 38517 Direct f
Southampton3 Switchboardi.
Email: james.hartley@
By email: andrew.parsons@ _
16 October 2017
Our Ref: JXH/1684/2113618/1
Your Ref: AP6/364065.1369
Dear Sirs,
BATES & OTHERS -V- POST OFFICE LTD
Claim No: HQ16X01238
Fourth Witness Statement of Mr Parsons
Further to our letter of Friday, 13 October 2017, we write to respond to particular points in the late
witness statement of Mr Parsons. This is an additional distraction and this response cannot be,
and is not intended to be, comprehensive.
We do make clear however that we disagree with your characterisation of events and
correspondence.
For example, in relation to the Second Sight Protocol, Mr Parsons states at paragraph 32 of his
witness statement that “Freeths wrote to my firm seeking to accept the protocol with a small
number of very minor tweaks”. This, and other statements on this issue, do not provide a complete
or fair representation of the position. Your client refused to cooperate in giving access to Second
Sight, and were obstructive until finally accepting that access was unavoidable. The Protocol was
finalised only after we had substantially amended its terms.
Mr Parsons exhibits an email from this firm’s James Hartley accepting the protocol, but does not
include the weeks of correspondence leading up to that acceptance where the parties negotiated
the terms of the Second Sight protocol in detail (for example, our Second Letter dated 17 March
2017). Strikingly, your client specifically requested that the Second Sight correspondence be
removed from the CMC bundle. The consequence of this is to engineer a completely misleading
picture before the Court. You must have known that you intended to make reference in Mr
Frecths LLP isa lmted tabi partnership, registred in England and Wale, partnership number 00304628, Registered Ofice: Cumberland Court, 80 Mount Stree, Ntingham NG 6HH
‘Auhecsed and regulated by the Sokctors Regulation Authony Akal it ofthe members of Frees LLP le avait for nepecten atthe registered oie,
www. freeths.co.uk
POL00041510
POL00041510
16 October 2017
Page 2
Parsons’ witness statement to the very correspondence which you were asking to be removed, on
a selective basis.
Questioning of our conduct
We take exception to Mr Parsons’ comments at paragraph 26 of his witness statement, in which he
impugns our professional conduct:
“Some examples of SOls served by Freeths are at pages 93-132. Consistently with the
Solicitor's Code of Conduct, Indicative Behaviour 11.8, Post Office and its legal team had
anticipated that the SOls, which were required to be confirmed by Statements of Truth, would
be the subject of meaningful scrutiny by the solicitors on the record so as to ensure that
claims were not advanced without any proper basis. However, these problems appeared to
demonstrate that the SOls had been prepared with minimal input from Freeths”
There are three immediate points to make:
1. Mr Parsons is factually wrong. The task of producing many hundreds of SOls has been
onerous and this firm has had to manage the difficult balance between the requirements of
individual cases and proportionality considerations in a group litigation of this type.
2. The reference to Indicative Behaviour 11.8 is misplaced and unwarranted. 1B(11.8)
addresses:
‘demanding anything for yourself or on behalf of your client, that is not legally
recoverable, such as when you are instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from
the debtor the cost of the letter of claim since it cannot be said at that stage that such a
cost is legally recoverable;’
The SOls represent a good faith attempt to capture the information ordered by the Senior
Master in the SOls, on the instructions of individual Claimants.
3. This is not the first time that you have made serious and unwarranted allegations against
this firm. In your Letter of Response dated 28 July 2016 (at paragraph 2.69), you
apparently ‘reserve the right’ to report Freeths to the SRA in relation to pursuit of the deceit
claim. This was clearly an attempt to deter our clients from bringing claims against your
client. It is not appropriate to make allegations of professional misconduct in order to
secure a litigation advantage.
You will note that we have hitherto exercised restraint ourselves in relation to your direct contact
with our clients (contrary to SRA Indicative Behaviour 11.4) which has caused them considerable
concern:
POL00041510
POL00041510
16 October 2017
Page 3
(a) On 15 November 2016 your firm wrote directly to one of our clients (Philip Dauncey)
threatening enforcement action and bankruptcy, when you were aware that we were acting
for him and that he was a Claimant in the Group Action. This was likely if not calculated to
intimidate this Claimant and/or gain an unfair advantage over him.
(b) Your firm served Part 8 proceedings (seeking an order for sale of his property) directly on
Dr Kutianawala on 25 August 2016, 20 days after Freeths served the sealed amended
Claim Form on your firm, which named him on the Schedule of Claimants. You were aware
that we acted for him in the Group Action but nevertheless wrote directly to him.
By 4pm on 17 October 2017, please confirm that you retract the allegations of professional
misconduct in the Fourth Witness Statement of Mr Parsons.
Yours faithfully _
Freeths LLP