POL00103324
POL00103324
Message
From: Jonathan Swift
on behalf of — Jonathan Swii
Sent: 26/07/2016
To: Rodric Williams: -
cc: Christopher KnigI
Subject: Re: Post Office Limited - Update and Request for Further Advice
Dear Rodric,
Thank you for letting us know. Chris and IU are content with this —- as we discussed, counsel instructed on the
litigation are much better placed to make this type of judgement. Best of luck with the defence to the claim. And our
sincere thanks to all for the assistance since last year.
Regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan Swift QC
11 KBW
11, King's Bench Walk,
Temple, London. EC4Y 7EQ.
From: Rodric Williams?
Date: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 11:35
To: Jonathan Swi
Cc: Christopher Knig!
Subject: FW: Post Office Limited - Update and Request for Further Advice
Dear Jonathan,
hope this finds you well.
I write to update you on where matters stand following my email below, which we discussed by telephone on 27 May
2016. During our call, we understood your advice to be that it would be reasonable for Post Office’s Chairman to take
POL-0102907
POL00103324
POL00103324
advice on the recommendations made in your January 2016 report from the legal team defending Post Office in High
Court Group Litigation which raises substantially the same issues as those which gave rise to your recommendations. We
also understood your advice to be that it would be equally reasonable for the Chairman to continue work started on
your recommendations, given that they stand as the outcome of your report irrespective of the Group Litigation.
On 9 June 2016, Post Office met with the external legal team advising it on the Group Litigation, which is being led by
Tony Robinson QC. I attach a letter dated 21 June 2016 from Bond Dickinson, Post Office’s solicitors in the Group
Litigation, which records the advice given during that consultation. Given the very strong advice from Leading Counsel,
the Chairman instructed that the work being undertaken in response to your recommendations should end, and instead
be addressed through equivalent work taken forward in the Group Litigation.
Please let me know if this raises any issue for you. Otherwise, we thank you for your valuable advice in this matter, and
would hope to be able to call on your services again should the need arise.
With kind regards, Rodric
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 24 May 2016 00:33
To: ‘Jonathan. Swiftf.
Cc: ‘Christopher Knight’; Patrick Bourke; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwoot
Subject: Post Office Limited - Update and Request for Further Advice
Jonathan,
POL has been progressing the 8 recommendations you made in your January 2016 Chairman’s report concerning the
further steps that POL might reasonably take in respect of the SPMR cases. With respect to the recommendations
concerning Horizon (recommendations 3, 4 and 5) and POL’s suspense accounts (recommendation 8), Deloitte LLP has
scoped work that could be taken to address the recommendations, and has provided to POL a range of procedures
which could be performed.
POL is now considering the further instructions it could provide to Deloitte. Influencing these considerations is that on
11 April 2016, court proceedings were started against POL when 91 Claimants issued a Claim Form in the High Court of
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (copy attached). The Claim Form has not been served (it was provided to us for
information only), and is not currently supported by a Statement of Case. It has however been supplemented by a letter
dated 28 April 2016 from the Claimants solicitors, Freeths LLP, purportedly sent pursuant to the Practice Direction on
Pre-Action Conduct. The letter is long (53 pages) and references (among others) issues with Horizon and POL’s suspense
accounts which overlap your recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 8, as well as issues with Post Office’s prosecution practices
(overlapping your recommendation 1) and branch support systems (overlapping your recommendation 7).
When you first considered this matter for POL’s Chairman, the SPMRs had been advancing their concerns through
extrajudicial means, e.g. through MPs and in the media. Now that POL has been sued, is it reasonable for POL to address
any further steps it might reasonably take in respect of the SPMR cases through the proceedings, rather than in
response to your report and recommendations?
I appreciate you may not have given this matter much thought over the past few months, so we would be happy to
discuss this with you further by telephone in the first instance. I have copied John Davitt to help with the arrangements
if you would find that more convenient.
With thanks and kind regards,
Rodric
“ Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Corporate Services
Post Office Ltd
_20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ
' rodric.william:
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
POL-0102907
POL00103324
POL00103324
Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
JES ISU IIIS IIIT III ASIII III II OI II OS IIIS OO SI II ODI AIA.
POL-0102907