POL00046011
POL00046011
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Background Information
Applicant details Claim no. M097
Name Janet Skinner
Branch North Bransholme
Loss position Branch loss £59,216.43
Date of loss June 2005 to May 2006
Debt position Loss remains outstanding. Post Office has the
benefit of a confiscation order against the
Applicant, further to which she has paid £1,400
against the debt.
Consequential losses Loss of earnings since suspension
claimed (unquantified)
“Compensation for the losses that I have
suffered” (unspecified and unquantified)
Contract / termination I SPMR/ employee / other I SPMR
position
Former or current Former SPMR
SPMR?
Termination route Unknown
Termination date Unknown — the Applicant was suspended on 31
May 2006 and pleaded guilty to charges of false
accounting on 3 January 2007.
Applicant position Bankrupt / IVA? No
Prosecuted? Yes
Outcome of criminal The Applicant pleaded guilty to charges of false
prosecution accounting and was sentenced to 9 months in
prison. She served less than 2 months.
Civil proceedings? No
High profile media / MP No
case?
Professional advisor Graham Cade
Howe & Co.
4A 290284131 1
POL00046011
POL00046011
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Bond Dickinson Legal Analysis
Legal risk adjusted claim value
(£57,816.43) — POL should not make any settlement payment to the Applicant.
Legal analysis of branch losses
Legal factor Legal risk Legal risk
(0% = no risk adjusted
toPOL)I claim value
Claim value
Loss owed to Post Office 0% I (£57,816.43)
Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal 0% I (£57,816.43)
proceedings cannot be brought against POL?
Yes
Responsibility for loss 0% I (£57,816.43)
No evidence of failure in Horizon or POL procedures.
POL's position is that the loss was caused by human error or theft; the
losses were deliberately concealed from POL by the Applicant, who
admitted in interview that she inflated the reported cash figures to conceal
the losses in branch.
Second Sight's view is that “the root cause of the losses arising in this
branch, is that the Applicant had allowed her staff member full and
unsupervised access to the branch and to the safe...This opportunity to
access all of the cash... presented that employee with a perfect
opportunity to commit theft”.
Other legal issues na nla
None
Interest
Nia (£57,816.43)
Legal analysis of consequential losses resulting from termination
Legal factor Legal risk Legal risk
(0% = no risk adjusted
toPOL)I claim value
Value of claim based on Applicant's figures Unquantified
Loss of earnings
Other unspecified losses
4A 290284131 2
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
POL00046011
POL00046011
Are the claimed consequential losses recoverable at law?
Loss of earnings
Other unspecified losses
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal
proceedings cannot be brought against POL?
Yes
0%
£0
Is there the possibility of an unlawful termination claim because the
Applicant's contract was not terminated on the required notice?
No. The Applicant was suspended immediately following the audit on 31
May 2006 and either resigned or was dismissed before pleading guilty to
false accounting in January 2007.
0%
£0
Was contract termination unlawful?
Given the Applicant's guilty plea and subsequent imprisonment, we do not
consider that the Applicant would have any claim in respect of
termination.
0%
£0
Is there evidence that the Applicant could have “sold" his / her
branch as a going concern if given 3 months’ notice?
No evidence has been provided to date.
0%
£0
Interest
n/a
£0
Suitability for mediation
We do not consider that case is suitable for mediation as the Applicant:-
e admitted falsifying the branch’s accounts to conceal losses she was aware existed in the branch
and not seeking POL’s assistance to resolve those issues; and
*® was prosecuted and imprisoned for her offence.
In light of the above, other factors (such as the Applicant (1) failing to provide any evidence that any fault
with Horizon was to blame for/contributed to the losses at her branch; (2) failing to identify any specific
transactional issues she claims to have experienced; and (3) admitting failings in following procedure and
protocol for operating the branch) are secondary and are unlikely to have any material bearing on POL's
decision whether to mediate.
Bond Dickinson contact
Name:
Tel:
Email:
4A 290284131
POL00046011
POL00046011
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
1. This advice has been produced by applying the principles set out in the Advice from Linklaters
dated 20 March 2014.
Advice qualifications
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 Report. 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 not considered any criminal law issues or whether any conviction / sentence may be
unsafe. We have assumed that there are no criminal law risks.
7. We have applied a de minimis threshold to legal risk. Where the legal risk is very small (less than
20%) we have recorded this as 0% in our analysis.
4A 290284131 4
POL00046011
POL00046011
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Post Office Settlement Mandate
Legal risk adjusted claim value
(£57,816.43)
Other settlement factors
Factor Adjustment Adjusted
settlement
threshold
Legal risk adjusted claim value
Other admissions of fault by POL
No other admissions made.
PR/ media implications
We are not aware of any special PR / media issues related to this specific
case but POL may wish to confirm this position with the PR team.
Applicant expectations / experience from any previous negotiations
We are not aware of any previous negotiations that have taken place.
Criminal case — need to protect safety of convictions
The Applicant was charged with, pleaded guilty to, and imprisoned for
false accounting. The Applicant served 6 weeks of a 9 month sentence.
Actual cost of settlement to POL
The branch losses have not been repaid by the Applicant. Any settlement
would first require the write off of the outstanding debt to POL.
Risk of future litigation / court costs
There is no indication that the Applicant would seek to litigate this matter.
Other factors
General benefit of resolving cases
Mandated financial settlement range
Alternative / additional non-financial settlement proposals that can be offered
Other matters
Approved for mediation
Post Office Approval
Name: Date:
4A 290284131 5