POL00103355
POL00103355
Message
From:
on behalf of Jane Macleod <
Sent: 18/10/2018 18:
To: Tim Parker [f
cc: Paula Vennells
Subject: RE: Postmaster Litigation
Hi Tim
Paula and I have discussed this at length this afternoon. The commentary in the judgement is unfortunate. There is
obviously a fine balance between doing everything that we can to achieve a legal victory, and maintaining the right
public image ~ not helped when the judge is linking activity from 15 years ago, and assuming by extrapolation that this
must underpin our behaviour today. We will work with Portland and the Comms team to manage the lines going
forward, and will discuss with our external advisors how best to position the language so that we do not inadvertently
influence the Judge adversely. Fortunately the decision in the Common Issues trial should be made on the basis of legal
analysis ~ which is less subjective, and also appealable if we believe the judge arrives at the wrong decision.
To date there has not been any publicity as a result of the judgement, however the Law Gazette has picked it up today
(https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/judge-berat: fitigation-tactics-from-an-earlier-era/5067986. article). It
was the Law Gazette that picked up the previous criticism a year ago.
I will circulate an update to the Board separately. Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of this.
Kind regards,
Jane
® Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Lega’, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number:
From: Tim Parker
Sent: 18 October 2018 14:53
To: Jane MacLeod <"
Cc: Diane Blanchard <_
Subject: Re: Postmaster Litigation
; Paula Vennells <
Thanks Jane, I’ve read the judgement, and the judge does seem to somewhat negative about our efforts to take out
elements of the evidence, even if he does acknowledge that both sides have been uncooperative with each other in the
management of the case. My worry is that some of his points at the end betray what looks like an inherent dislike of our
“aggressive” approach to the individual claimants as well as an “aggressive” approach to litigation, as well as a rap over
the knuckles regarding what the judges sees as using negative PR as part of our argument. Interesting to know if this
initial response from him suggests any change of tack on our part.
Best
Tim
POL-0102938
POL00103355
POL00103355
Tim Parker
Chairman
National Trust
Chairman
Post Office Limited
Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London, EC2Y 9AQ.
Chairman
Samsonite International SA
Westerring 17, B-9700 Oudenaarde, Belgium
From: Jane MacLeod <
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 12:52 pm
To: Tim Parker
Cc: Diane Blanchard; Paula Vennells
Subject: Postmaster Litigation
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.
POL-0102938
POL00103355
POL00103355
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 Lega’, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number
POL-0102938