POL00103349 - Email from Jane MacLeod to Tim Parker, Diane Blanchard and Paula Vennells re: Postmaster Litigation

Evidence on official site

POL00103349
POL00103349

Message

From: Jane MacLeod :

on behalf of — Jane MacLeod

Sent: 18/10/2018 11

To: Tim Parker

cc: Diane Blanchard ; Paula Vennells t
Subject: Postmaster Litigation

Attachments: Bates v The Post Office - Judgment No..2 strike out application 15 Oct 1....doc
Hi Tim
I understand Tom Cooper has recommended you read the judgement from the hearing last week. This is attached.

We received the decision on Monday evening and the decision rejects our application for strike out of significant parts of
the evidence continued in the Claimants’ Witness Statements.

The application was decided on case management grounds for which the Managing Judge has considerable

discretion; applying that discretion, the Managing Judge set a very high threshold for strike out, and concluded that we
had not established to the necessary standard that the Claimants’ evidence could never be relevant to the case, given
the number of Common Issues; the “considerable legal analysis” each will require; and what our case on those issues is.
However he confirmed that he will apply properly the law on admissibility when it comes to trial, and that the November
2018 Common Issues Trial will not rule on matters which concern Horizon or whether Post Office actually “breached” its
obligations to the Claimants (matters to which most of the disputed evidence goes and which will be dealt with in later
trials).

As previously advised, this is consistent with the Managing Judge’s approach of wanting to give the Claimants their “day
in court” while applying the orthodox legal position. That said, we lost the application and can expect the Claimants to
be awarded their costs when that question is dealt with on the first day of trial (estimated to be c£120k).

In deciding the application, the Managing Judge was critical of our conduct of the case (see particularly paragraphs 55-
57), including intimating that we were not acting cooperatively and constructively in trying to resolve this litigation
(which criticism was levelled equally between the parties); and that we had impugned the court and its processes by
making the application for improper purposes. This response is extremely disappointing given the approach we have
been adopting, and his challenge as to the purpose for which we had applied for strike out is at odds with comments he
had made during various procedural hearings over the past year. Nevertheless, we are refining our preparation for trial
— including our reactive communications plan — in the context of the Judge’s remarks.

Paula and I are catching up on this later today, and I know she would like to discuss it with you.
Kind regards,
Jane

¢ Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street

IDON

9AQ

Mobile number

POL-0102932