NOVEMBER 2012
Strictly Confidential
POST OFFICE LIMITED MATTERS — DISPUTE RESOLUTION
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — CLAIMS OVER £500K OR THOSE OF A SENSITIVE NATURE
POL00107831
POL00107831
Minoan Group I Nick Kennett On 17/10/12, Minoan Group Plc, an AIMIMinoan’s solicitors have I CMS Cameron
ple TravelI (Financial listed travel and leisure company, I provided some details of I McKenna
Kiosks Services); announced an agreement with the NationalItheir proposed kiosk, and
Kevin Federation of Subpostmasters (NFSP) toIhave stated that Minoan will
Gilliland install computerized travel agency kiosksInot offer POL “restricted
(Network & across the Post Office network. services”, including travel
Sales) insurance and foreign
Minoan plan to pilot 50 kiosks in market I exchange.
town sub post offices, with 50 more being
added every three months. Minoan aim toINFSP have also responded
install at least 1,000 kiosks within five I seeking to assure POL that
years. “no agreed ‘restricted
services’ will be sold
Post Office Limited (“POL”) was not] through the kiosk”.
consulted about this agreement.
A meeting is being arranged
POL’s solicitors have written to Minoan’s I with Minoan and (if
solicitors: appropriate) NFSP to discuss
Minoan’s kiosks, including
1.warning Minoan not to trade off POL’s I their branding. This
brand; meeting should enable POL to
2. requiring Minoan to make it clear that Ibetter assess the strength
POL is not associated with Minoan or]Iof its case against Minoan.
its services;
3.asking Minoan to provide details of
its proposed kiosk services, including
the “look and feel” of its branding
Significant Litigation Report Susan Crichton
Page 1 of 6
14 November
2012
POL00107831
POL00107831
Strictly Confidential
and whether it involves the sale of
competing products.
POL has also written to the NFSP raising
the same concerns and expressing
disappointment that the deal was
announced without any prior notice.
Claim for I Angela A former subpostmaster (SPM) sought IThe SPM had seven days to] DAC
Judicial Van-Den- “judicial review” of POL’s decision toIapply to the Court to/IBeachcrofts
Review Bogerd terminate his SPM contract. reconsider its decision.
The SPM exercised that right
The SPM claimed that POL’s termination I without notifying POL.
process was flawed and infringed his
Human Rights. He asked the court to IThe SPM also applied to
review POL’s decision and find that it I court seeking to prevent POL
was unlawful and/or an abuse of power. from evicting him until the
Court had reconsidered its
POL asked the Court to refuse to permit I decision.
judicial review of the decision on the
grounds that it was a commercial matter. The Court will hear’ the
SPM's applications on
On 27/09/12 the Court refused the SPMI16/11/12.
permission to pursue judicial review.
The Court also ordered the SPM to
contribute to POL’s legal costs. As a
consequence of that decision, POL moved
to evict the SPM from the branch premises
as it is entitled to do under the SPM
contract.
Customer Angela The Claimant, an individual, started I POL and Shieldex have filed] Bond Pearce
Complaint -I Van-Den- court proceedings under the Equality Act I Defences to the claim.
Age and I Bogerd and Human Rights Act alleging disability
Disability and age discrimination against Shieldex] POL has also claimed an
Discriminati Limited (a POL franchisee) and POL. indemnity from Shieldex
on under the franchise
Significant Litigation Report Susan Crichton
Page 2 of 6
14 November
2012
Strictly Confidential
POL00107831
POL00107831
The complaint arises out of issues with
customer access and service at a branch
run by Shieldex.
Damages are claimed,
The estimated potential exposure (if the
claim succeeds) is likely to be in the
region of £6,000 to £18,000, plus legal
costs.
but not quantified.
If POL is found to be a service provider
under the Equality Act, and therefore
liable to make reasonable adjustments to
premises, this is likely to have
implications across the Network.
agreement for any sums which
POL has to pay as a result
of Shieldex’s actions.
POL's ability to recover any
such sums from Shieldex may
be limited given that HMRC
has presented a winding up
petition against Shieldex
for significant unpaid
taxes.
The claim is currently
stayed. On 04/10/12 POL
attended a “without
prejudice” meeting with the
Claimant to better
understand her concerns.
POL has obtained cost
estimates for adjustments to
the branch to address the
Claimant’s concerns. These
adjustments will now be used
to form a proposal for an
overall settlement of the
claim.
Horizon Rod Ismay POL has received notification of 5 claims] Following consultation with I Bond Pearce
claims from former SPMs. Each SPM has alleged I MPs, Second Sight Support
wrongful termination of contract basedI Services Ltd (an independent
on: investigator) is reviewing
up to 16 cases where SPMs
- (1) alleged defects in POL’s internal Iallege that Horizon caused
processes; and them losses. That
- (2) alleged defects with the HorizonI investigation is currently
system. underway. It is anticipated
that no further court action
Significant Litigation Report
Page 3 of 6
2012
Susan
14
Crichton
November
POL00107831
POL00107831
Strictly Confidential
Bach SPM is seeking damages ofIwill be taken pending the
c.£150,000. To date, the SPMs’ I outcome of that
solicitors Shoosmiths have not progressed I investigation.
4 of the 5 claims. POL successfully had
the Court strike out the fifth claim andI Post Office Ltd is also
recovered costs from the Claimant. actively considering
proposals from Justice for
Despite reports in the media thatISudpostmasters Alliance (an
Shoosmiths have consulted on a further 85] organisation “established to
similar cases, POL has not been notified I raise awareness of the
of any additional claims. issues within the Post
Office Horizon system”) to
develop a system by which
individual subpostmasters
can raise concerns with
Horizon within a “no blame”
framework. Those concerns
would be considered as part
of Second Sight’s review.
Employment Colin Eight claims against POL are currentlyI Significant claims continue I Weightmans
Stretch proceeding before the Employment Ito »e monitored (ooth I / Eversheds
Tribunals. internally and with external I (1x case
counsel) and risk assessed I only)
Claims allege unfair dismissal forIas they progress.
conduct, unfair dismissal for capability,
sex and race discrimination, and
victimisation.
Potential exposure to POL over the six
claims is c.£340,000, with two cases yet
to be valued.
Claims could require policy changes if
upheld (e.g. with respect to race or sex
discrimination).
Significant Litigation Report Susan Crichton
Page 4 of 6
14 November
2012
POL00107831
POL00107831
Strictly Confidential
PART (B) — PRINCIPAL CRIMINAL CASES BROUGHT BY POST OFFICE LIMITED
Sudpostmaster accused of theft of
£85,872.07.
is in place.
Restraint order against assets
Defendant pleaded guilty and will be sentenced on 23/11/12. Defendant
to sell property to repay POL loss.
Post Office manager accused of theft of
£27,824.51.
Defendant pleaded guilty on the basis that the money was used to pay
a debt as Defendant feared for his safety. At a hearing on 05/11/12,
the Court rejected this and adjourned the case for sentencing on
07/12/12.
Subpostmaster accused of fraud of
£38,284.68.
Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonments
(suspended for 2 years) and 250 hours unpaid work. A timetable has
been set for confiscation proceedings to determine the sum payable to
POL, with a final hearing set for 11/02/13.
Subpostmaster pleaded guilty to theft of
£114,095.
At a hearing on 05/09/12 the Judge found that the Defendant had
£20,000 available for compensation, and ordered the Defendant to pay
that sum within 6 months or be sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.
Two assistant subpostmasters accused of
covering shortages by delaying the
processing of business deposits to
Santander. Case concerned 40 deposit slips
being suppressed with a total value of
£34,115.50.
Case has been listed for trial in January 2013.
Significant Litigation Report
Page 5 of 6
2012
Susan Crichton
14 November
POL00107831
POL00107831
Strictly Confidential
Two brothers in partnership as
subpostmasters accused of theft and/or
On 09/10/12, the second day of trial, one defendant pleaded guilty to
theft/fraud of £99,000. This was accepted by the prosecution and no
fraud of £237,240.64 evidence was offered against the other defendant. The case has been
adjourned to 20/11/12 for sentencing. A timetable will also be set
for confiscation proceedings in which the maximum sum payable to POL
will be determined.
Subpostmaster accused of theft of The Court is to set a date for the first hearing of this case to
£77,905.02 determine the details of trial.
Subpostmaster accused of theft of Defendant attended court on 07/11/12 and pleaded guilty. Case
£57,811.79 adjourned for sentencing on 28/11/12.
POL has recovered £43,988.03 to date.
Subpostmaster accused of theft of Defendant attended court on 06/11/12 and pleaded guilty. Case
£49,245,19 adjourned for sentencing on 03/12/12.
POL has recovered £49,245.19 to date.
Subpostmaster accused of theft of Defendant to attend court on 13/12/12 to determine details of trial.
£25,860.66
Significant Litigation Report
Page 6 of 6
2012
Susan Crichton
14 November