Searchable transcripts of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry hearings
  • Transcripts
  • Evidence list
Searchable transcripts of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry hearings
  • Evidence
  • POL00061838 - Initial Complaint Review And Mediation Scheme Settlement Analysis - legal advice

POL00061838 - Initial Complaint Review And Mediation Scheme Settlement Analysis - legal advice

Evidence on official site

POL00061838
POL00061838

Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege

Crnd Dideingow

INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

Background Information

Applicant details Claim no. Moo3
Name Peter Anthony Holmes
Branch Jesmond Post Office
Loss position Branch loss £49,096.16
Date of loss September 2008
Debt position Loss repaid

Consequential losses
claimed

i. Unquantified compensation for loss of
POL wages;

ii. Unquantified compensation for “trauma”.

iii. Unquantified compensation for “damage
to reputation”; and

iv. Unquantified compensation for sentence
(curfew) following criminal conviction.

Contract / termination
position

SPMR / employee / other

Officer in Charge (employee) but connected to
case M021 (brought by the Subpostmaster)

Former or current
SPMR?

Former Officer in Charge

Termination route

Unclear from documentation — the Applicant was
employed by the Subpostmaster as the Officer
in Charge and so termination was outside of
Post Office's control.

Termination date

Unknown.

Applicant position

Bankrupt / IVA?

Not as far as we are aware.

Prosecuted?

Yes

Outcome of criminal
prosecution

Convicted (following guilty plea)

Civil proceedings?

No

High profile media / MP
case?

Yes - http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-
east-news/post-master-peter-holmes-tried-
4463566

Professional advisor

Denise Jackman, Mckeags (Solicitor)

48_29028413_1

POL00061838
POL00061838

Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege

Crnd Dideingow

Bond Dickinson Legal Analysis
Legal risk adjusted claim value

£0.00 - 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
to POL) I claim value

Claim value
Post Office has not sought payment of the losses from the Applicant — the 0% £0

Subpostmaster, rather than the Applicant (Officer in Charge) is liable.

Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal 0% £0
proceedings cannot be brought against POL?

Yes — any claim would be time barred due to events taking place 2007 to
September 2008 — see additional notes.

Responsibility for loss 0% £0
No evidence of failure in Horizon or POL procedures.

Applicant has failed to provide new argument or evidence as to why the
losses occurred or to show that POL was at fault.

Other legal issues
None

Legal analysis of consequential losses resulting from termination

Legal factor Legal risk Legal risk
(0% = no risk adjusted
to POL) I claim value

Value of claim based on Applicant's figures
Unquantified loss of earnings 0% £0
Unquantified compensation for “trauma”

Unquantified compensation for “damage to reputation”

Unquantified compensation for sentence (curfew) following
criminal conviction

48_29028413_1 2
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege

POL00061838
POL00061838

Crnd Dideingow

Are the claimed consequential losses recoverable at law?

Damages would not be recoverable from POL for loss of earnings — the
Applicant was employed by the Subpostmaster.

Damages are not recoverable for emotional distress or anguish.

0%

£0

Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal
proceedings cannot be brought against POL?

Yes — any claim against POL would be time barred due to events taking
place in 2007 to September 2008 — see additional notes.

0%

£0

Is there the possibility of an unlawful termination claim because the
Applicant's contract was not terminated on the required notice
under his contract of service?

The Applicant was employed by the Subpostmaster as an Officer in
Charge and did not therefore have a contract with POL.

0%

3 months’
salary

Was contract termination unlawful?
Unknown (see above)

0%

£0

Is there evidence that the Applicant could have “sold" his / her
branch as a going concern if given 3 months’ notice?

N/A

0%

£0

Other legal issues

The Applicant was successfully prosecuted. This means that he cannot
bring a claim against POL for malicious prosecution but can bring a claim
against the state for wrongful imprisonment.

Nevertheless should POL offer any concessions to the Applicant, this may
place his employing subpostmaster at risk of a claim under the Applicant's
employment contract with that subpostmaster.

Suitability for mediation
This case is not suitable for mediation as the Applicant:

- was convicted of false accounting (following a guilty plea);

- has failed to provide any evidence that faults with Horizon were to blame for the losses;
- has failed to provide any other evidence that POL had contributed or caused the losses;

- [the claim is time barred so no civil remedy is available to the Applicant];
- POL will not be making a financial settlement, therefore mediation should be avoided to prevent

‘raising the hopes’ of the Applicant in relation to receiving a cash settlement from POL.

Bond Dickinson contact

Name: Thomas Lillie...
Tel: i__..GRO
Email:

48_29028413_1
POL00061838
POL00061838

Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege

Crnd Dideingow

We have asserted that there is a time bar defence. In fact, this defence will only apply from the end of
September 2014 (6 years after the last incident in September 2008). Given that this case is unlikely to
be considered before that point, we consider it appropriate to assume that a time bar defence will apply.

Additional Notes

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. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 unless such risks have been
previously highlighted by Cartwright King.

6. 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.

48_29028413_1 1
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege

Post Office Settlement Mandate
Legal risk adjusted claim value

£0.00

Other settlement factors

POL00061838
POL00061838

Crnd Dideingow

Factor

Adjustment

Adjusted
settlement
threshold

Legal risk adjusted claim value

Other admissions of fault by POL
There is no evidence that POL is at fault in respect of this case.

PR / media implications
Case has been reported in the media.

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 convicted of false accounting following a guilty plea

Actual cost of settlement to POL

The Applicant has not repaid the losses — as an Officer in Charge (rather
than a Subpostmaster), he was not liable to repay the losses.

Risk of future litigation / court costs

There is no indication that the Applicant would seek to litigate this matter
given that (a) he has been convicted of a criminal offence (following a
guilty plea) and (b) any civil claim would be time barred

Cost savings through early settlement

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

48_29028413_1
POL00061838
POL00061838

Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege

Crnd Dideingow

Name: Date:

48_29028413_1 6
Previous Next

© Crown Copyright, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Converted by Matthew Somerville.