Agenda
Post Office Limited
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee Agenda
POL00128937
re)
I 03 March 2020
11.00 - 12.00 hrs
I UKGI, 1 Victoria Street,
I Meeting
London, SW1H OET - Room
UG - H/ Microsoft Teams
¢ Tim Parker
(Chairman)
Ken McCall (by phone)
(Senior Independent Director)
Tom Cooper
Nick Read
(Group Chief Executive Officer)
* Ben Foat
(General Counsel)
© Rodric Williams
(Head of Legal - Dispute
Resolution & Brand)
* Kate Emanuel
(Herbert Smith Freehills)
(Non-Executive Director)
Noting
Alisdair Cameron
(Group Chief Financial Officer)
* Veronica Branton
(Company Secretary)
* Richard Watson
(General Counsel - UKGI)
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
Welcome and Conflicts of Interest Chairman 11.00 -
11.05 hrs
Minutes and Matters Arising Approval Chairman
- 22 January 2020
- 04 February 2020
GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims I Discussion Ben Foat 11.05 —
Scheme 11.50 hrs
4. Any Other Business Noting 11.50-
4.1 Herbert Smith Freehills fees Ben Foat 12.00 hrs
4.2 Governance
5. Date of Next Meeting: Noting Chairman
TBC.
Strictly Confidential
1 of 59
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 2 Minutes and Matters Arising
see gs . OST
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
Board
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE POSTMASTER LITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF POST OFFICE LIMITED HELD
ON WEDNESDAY 22 JANUARY 2020 AT 20 FINSBURY STREET, LONDON EC2Y 9AQ AT 16.00 HRS
Present: Tim Parker Chairman (TP)
Ken McCall Senior Independent Director (KM) (by phone)
Tom Cooper Non-Executive Director (TC)
In attendance: Veronica Branton Company Secretary (VB)
Nick Read Group Chief Executive Officer (NR)
Alisdair Cameron Group Chief Financial Officer (AC)
Ben Foat General Counsel (BF)
Andrew Parsons Womble Bond Dickinson (AP)
Rodric Williams Head of Legal — Dispute Resolution & Brand (RW)
Richard Watson General Counsel — UKGI (RWa)
Alan Watts Herbert Smith Freehills (AW)
Catherine Emanuel Herbert Smith Freehills (CE)
Agenda Item Action
1. Welcome and Conflicts of Interest
A quorum being present, the Chairman opened the meeting. The Directors declared that they
had no conflicts of interest in the matters to be considered at the meeting in accordance with
the requirements of section 177 of the Companies Act 2006 and the Company’s Articles of
Association.
2 Minutes and Matters Arising
The Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee APPROVED the minutes of the meeting held on 10
December 2019.
3. Group Litigation Order: Post-settlement Report
Ben Foat introduced the report which set out the broad approach to the post settlement
stage of the litigation, the structure of programme, the actions required and the decisions
sought.
Disclosure obligations in relation to convicted claimants
BF noted that the team was working through the disclosure obligations in relation to
convicted claimants.
A number of points were raised, including:
* Brian Altman QC had provided advice for Post Office Limited on the Group Litigation in
2013. We wanted to demonstrate a fresh approach and using a QC previously engaged
was therefore unhelpful. It was noted that Brian Altman had been giving advice based on
the position known at the time, that the claimants and their solicitors knew about his
appointment and were comfortable with this. BF noted that he had received advice on the
appointment from the legal team as he had raised the potential conflict of interest but
had been advised that Brian Altman’s ability to provide objective and independent advice
was not tainted. Notwithstanding these points, Subcommittee Members thought that the
use of any QC previously involved in the litigation to advise on the process for disclosure
review might not appear satisfactory to an outside observer
© What would Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) and Peters & Peters approach be on this work?
It was noted that HSF were not experts in criminal law and so experts in this field needed
Page 1of3
2 of 59 Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 2 Minutes and Matters Arising
see gs . ST
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
Board
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
to be engaged. Other elements of the post settlement programme, such as commercial
work on contracts would be supported by HSF
« Taking a “narrow” approach to disclosure in which standardised disclosure was provided
to all defendants without a review of each case or “wide” approach in which each case
was reviewed individually was discussed. TC thought it would be helpful to work through
some examples of actual cases (e.g. how would we deal with balances?) to understand
how taking a “wide” approach would translate into disclosure in real life. AW would run AW
through three different cases that had been looked at with TC
«That it would be Important to understand the number of cases that we thought could end
up being overturned on appeal and the characteristics of those. It was noted that the
position was unlikely to be clear cut
« When would we have completed the review of the 34 cases we had identified for close
review? It was reported that we were targeting the end of February 2020 for completion
but it could take longer because of the appointment of a new QC
© How we ensured that we were taking the right approach in respect of the claimants given
that the robustness of the historic Horizon system had been cast into doubt was
discussed. It was felt that we needed to look at each case in the light of the disclosures
we needed to make to the CCRC following the Horizon judgment and gain a good
understanding of those cases while recognising that the Court of Appeal was the arbiter of
whether or not convictions had been unsafe. It was noted that the Crown Prosecution
Service would consider all the facts and the background to a case, reading the material
through a disclosure lens (i.e. the information you would have provided had you known
about it at the time of the conviction) and if they supported leave to appeal out of time
would explain why.
Historic Shortfall Scheme
BF noted that the Historic Shortfall Scheme was being set up to deal with future claims. There
would be a mechanism for all claims to come through an internal process and then go through
a mediation/ arbitration service. It was proposed that this scheme should start on 2" March
2020.
There were already about 140 potential claims that could go through the Scheme. This was a
major programme of work that needed to be done properly. We had agreed at the
settlement that it was likely to take a few months to set up the Scheme. It was noted that
most claims were usually received in the first month and we needed to take a pragmatic
approach and see what those claims looked like.
A number of points were raised, including:
* That it would be helpful to go through some examples on balances. It was noted that
there might be instances where there had been a shortfall which the Postmaster had paid
back to the Post Officer but the position would more difficult where the Postmaster said
they had paid the money back but this could not be verified
* That we would have to look carefully at what the Judge had said about the Horizon
system, its bugs and the extent to which that could be used to undermine convictions.
We needed to get a feel for how many people might be innocent or guilty, recognising
that there were many factors playing into this. Some prosecutions might have taken place
with inadequate information and we needed to put things right where we had got things
wrong. The only way to do that was to consider individual cases starting with the 34. It
was noted that Brian Altman had reviewed the Horizon judgment and did not think that
anything in it would lead to a conviction being overturned
Page 2 of 3
Board GLO S
b Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20 3 of 59
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 2 Minutes and Matters Arising
see gs . ST
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
Board
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
* It was recognised that there were broader ramifications for Post Office than the financial
ones and our communication plan needed to be clear.
Application of a Fee
It was noted that we did not know how many claims would come through the Historic Claims
Scheme and it was possible that we could end up having to take a more formal approach in a
particular instance and consider charging a fee. The Subcommittee thought that the optics of
charging a fee in the current circumstances would be negative even though not doing so
removed a deterrent to claims without merit being submitted. A pragmatic approach would
be taken to accepting claims after the official closing date. The Team was working out the HSC team
Scheme criteria and it was suggested that consideration be given to publishing the criteria.
Operation of the Scheme
The operation of the Scheme was discussed and the team would respond to the questions HSC team to
raised on: respond on
- What the criteria for payment would be and how and when this would be these points
communicated to Postmasters
- How the Scheme itself would be communicated to Postmasters past and present (e.g.
would this include writing to last know addresses as well as advertising the Scheme?)
- How much time Postmasters would be given to respond (which linked to how we
were going to advertise the Scheme).
The overarching concern was that the Scheme should operate fairly, been seen to do so and
that the Subcommittee had assurance on this point (e.g. from the mediator appointed).
Next steps
The work streams and the purpose of each was NOTED. The operational work stream would
be a significant piece of work, especially issuing new contracts.
The Subcommittee RESOLVED:
* To APPROVE the engagement of Wandsworth Mediation Services as the Historic Claims
Scheme's chosen mediation provider
© That applicants to the scheme should not be required to make a nominal contribution
towards the costs of mediation should a claim proceed that far through the scheme
That an extra month should be allowed to set up the full programme, with a target date of
2 March 2020 for the Historic Claims Scheme to go live.
It was AGREED that another meeting of the Subcommittee should be arranged to understand yg
the facts of a sample of the 34 cases, including some which had received publicity, once that
work had taken place.
BF would consider TC’s challenge on whether Womble Bond Dickinson should be supporting BF
Post Office on Starling.
5. Date of next meeting:
10.00 hrs, 18 February 2020.
Page 3 of 3
4 of 59 Board GLO S
b Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 2 Minutes and Matters Arising
sete ge . POST
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
Board
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
MINUTES OF AN ADDITIONAL MEETING OF THE POSTMASTER LITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF POST
OFFICE LIMITED HELD ON TUESDAY 04 FEBRUARY 2020 AT 20 FINSBURY STREET, LONDON EC2Y 9AQ AT
12.00 HRS
Present:
Tim Parker Chairman (TP)
Tom Cooper Non-Executive Director (TC)
In attendance:
Nick Read Group Chief Executive (NR)
Alisdair Cameron Group Chief Financial Officer (AC)
Veronica Branton Company Secretary (VB)
Rodric Williams Head of Legal - Dispute Resolution & Brand (RW)
Catherine Emanuel Herbert Smith Freehills (CE)
Richard Watson General Counsel - UKGI (RW)
Alan Watts Herbert Smith Freehills (AW)
Apologies:
Ken McCall Senior Independent Director (KM)
Agenda Item Action
1. Welcome and Conflicts of Interest
The Directors declared that they had no conflicts of interest in the matters to be considered
at the meeting in accordance with the requirements of section 177 of the Companies Act
2006 and the Company's Articles of Association.
Appointment of QC
Alan Watts summarised the issues set out in the email circulated on 31 January 2020 and
the decisions sought. The Subcommittee had decided at its meeting on 22 January 2020
that a new QC should be appointed to advise on the disclosure review process for the
criminally convicted cases because Brian Altman QC had provided advice on an aspect of the
Group Litigation in 2013.
Appointing a new QC made it more difficult to progress work on the disclosure review
quickly because it would take them time to get up to speed with the facts of the case. To
avoid delay, Herbert Smith Freehills had consulted with Peters and Peters and the criminal
team to pull together a list of potential candidates. A number of QCs and two retired judges
had been considered but it was recognised that highly qualified QCs able to start straight
away were hard to find. Retired judges had built a reputation and would want to do more
than sign off another’s work but on the other hand would not get involved in the granular
detail.
The appointment of Sir David Calvert-Smith, a retired judge, was recommended. He had not
had any prior involvement with the convicted claimants’ cases or the Group Litigation.
In the meantime, the team were continuing to work through the issues but we wanted the
QC or retired judge appointed to approve the process.
A number of points were raised, including:
Page 1 of 3
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
Tab 2 Minutes and Matters Arising
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
Board
6 of 59
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
The Subcommittee needed to be assured that they were getting the best advice and
there had been concern about being seen to “mark our own homework” because Brian
Altman had provided advice on the litigation in 2013. Brian Altman’s expertise and
independence were not in doubt but It was sensible, if only optically, that he should not
lead on the disclosure review
That we needed to check any potential conflicts of interest thoroughly before
appointing a new QC or retired judge to lead on the disclosure review
The Subcommittee needed a session to review the criminally convicted cases which
were likely to fall into different categories in terms of risk profile etc; we needed to
form a view on these cases, ideally in advance of cases being referred to the Court of
Appeal. It was reported that we were targeting the end of February 2020 for feedback
‘on the 34 cases we had identified for close review
Our view on what we should say on the right to appeal given the Judge’s comments on
the historic Horizon system was discussed. It was noted that we were in a potentially
Invidious position because where cases went to appeal we had been the prosecutor in
the first instance and would need to take a view on whether we should defend a
particular appeal case depending on its facts. We would need to consider this issue
further as we considered the individual cases and had advice on how to look at the
cases from a criminal lawyer. It was noted that Post Office Limited could not resolve
the criminally convicted cases, which had to go through the Court of Appeal. The Court
of Appeal might chose to distinguish between cases where claimants had pleaded guilty
and those who had not. Even on the lesser charge of false accounting a claimant would
need to show why they had pleaded guilty originally.
The Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee RESOLVED that:
As agreed at the Subcommittee meeting on 22 January 2020, Brian Altman QC should
not lead on the disclosure review cases; however, there was merit in retaining him for
advice, at least until the point at which it is decided which of the criminally convicted
cases were be referred to the Court of Appeal (after March 2020)
Tim Parker and Tom Cooper would speak with Sir David Calvert-Smith on 5 February
2020 before confirming his appointment
We should inform Freeths of our decision to appoint Sir David Calvert-Smith, once
confirmed.
The following actions were AGREED:
The Court of Appeal process should be set out, including likely costs and timelines
depending on the number of cases referred. The worst case scenario should be
included (e.g. we chose not to defend any of the cases appealed and we faced claims
for stigma as well as malicious prosecution)
We needed to understand our position in relation the wider group of potential
claimants so this should be set out
The meeting scheduled for 19"" February 2020 would probably not go ahead because
we are unlikely to be in a position to review the criminally convicted cases at that point;
confirmation of this would be provided by 14‘* February 2020 and a date sought to run
through the cases.
Date of Next Meeting:
18 February 2020 (subject to confirmation).
Page 2 of 3
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 M
reh 2020-03/03/20
POST.
OFFICE
POL00128937
Legal team
Legal team
Rodric
Williams/
Veronica
Branton
POL-0132239
‘ab 2 Minutes and Ma
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
Board
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
Chairman
Page 3 of 3
b Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL00128937
@
POL-0132239
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
and/or wellbeing support from Post Office
personnel or wellbeing professionals.
2 https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/our -expertise/services/alternative -legal-services
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege
POL-0132239
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Strictly Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege 7
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Appendix 1
Historic Shortfall Scheme: Eligil
El
ibility criteria for entry into the Scheme
Eligibility Checklist for Triage Team
ility and triage
POL00128937
On receipt of a completed application form, the triage team will consider the following:
NB: All criter
need to be fulfilled for an application to be eligible for the Scheme. The
triage stage does not involve any assessment of the merits of the claim, merely whether the
application is eligible to be assessed within the Scheme.
Criteria Fulfilled
1 The applicant has agreed to be bound by the Terms
of Reference for the Scheme
Notes for Triage Team
2 The applicant (or person on whose behalf the
application is being made — see point 3 below) has or
has previously had a direct contract with Post Office
Guidance should be sought from HSF
London where an application is made by
an individual but the contracting party is
a company, or vice versa.
Applications from Assistants are NOT
eligible for the Scheme.
3 If the application is being made on behalf of a
postmaster, the applicant is (i) an assignee, or (ii) a
legally-appointed personal representative, attorney or
deputy, and proof of that relationship has been
provided
Guidance should be sought from HSF
London ifit is not clear from the
information provided.
4 The application does not involve a criminal
conviction(s)
Applications involving the criminal
conviction of the applicant or other
person(s) associated with the Post
Office (e.g. spouse, assistant, branch
manager) are NOT eligible for the
‘Scheme.
5 The applicant was not part of the Group Litigation
Order
Applications from applicants who have
previously been involved in civil
proceedings related to their claim will
be eligible if they meet all criteria
Applications from applicants who have
previously settled their claim through
the Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation scheme commenced in
2013, Network Transformation, or other
settlement will be eligible if they meet
all criteria
Applications from claimants in the
Starling litigation will be eligible if they
meet all criteria
6 All or part of the claim relates to shortfalls which
arose on either Legacy Horizon (sometimes referred
to as “Horizon Online”) or HNG-X (but not on HNG-A)
between 1 January 2000 and 13 December 2019, i.e.
* Shortfalls that the applicant is asking to be paid,
repaid or written off,
* Loss of earnings during suspension arising from
shortfalls;
Applications relating solely to the
current version of Horizon (HNG-A) will
not be eligible to enter the scheme.
Applications relating to both previous
versions and the current version of
Horizon (HNG-A) will be eligible to
enter the scheme and such cases will
be assessed taking this distinction into
account
Please note that HNG-A was rolled out
on a branch-by-branch basis (and in
some cases terminal-by-terminal within
Strictly Confidential
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement
16 of 59
heme
ortfall Claim:
Historic
Criteria
* Loss of earnings for POL’s failure to give notice
of termination arising from shortfalls; or
* Other losses arising from shortfalls. These may
be wide-ranging in nature and might include:
* Stigma damages (e.g. losses arising from the
applicant's unemployability on being
terminated);
«Loss of investment (including loss of
applicant's initial investment into the branch,
diminution in the capital value of the branch
and its attached business, and the diminution
in the capital value of the applicant's
residence linked to the branch),
* Personal injury (e.g. injury to feelings/mental
distress, psychiatric harm, physical harm):
and/or
« Harassment by POL to explain/settle
outstanding shortfalls.
POL00128937
Notes for Triage Team
the branch) so some caution should be
exercised with shortfalls arising in
2018/2019
Applications relating to breach of good
faith obligations that are not related to
shortfalls are not eligible.
Applications relating to very old losses
that may appear to be time-barred will
be eligible if they meet all criteria
Applications that are not financial
(requesting, for example, an apology or
reinstatement of position) will be
eligible if they meet ail criteria,
Eligible? [Yes/No]
Triage category? [Category 1, 2, 3]
Strictly Confidential
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Historic Shortfall Scheme — Process Maps
. Version 2 - 27 February 2020
Appendix 2
lai ive
fe} either in hard or et
See slide 2 - Claims logged and Application Forms assessed to identify
cases that need to be escalated
Document: Escalation Criteria
Eligibility assessment and triage
See slide 3— Information obtained from PO, claims assessed for
eligibility and triaged/categorised
Documents: Eligibility Criteria and template letters
Claim assessment and requests for further information
See slides 5 to 8 — Assessment of claim based on information provided,
opportunities for further input/information from PO and/or the Claimant
Document: Assessment Criteria, Claim Assessment Form and
template letters
I
Decision-Making and Outcome
See slides 9 and 10 — Decision-Making Panel process, communication
with the Claimant, and settlement offer/response
Document: Decision-Making Panel Terms of Reference and template
letters
(if applicable) Dispute Resolution Process
See slides 11 to 13 Good Faith Meeting, Escalation Meeting, mediation
and possible further escalation
Document: Mediation Agreement and template letters
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20 17 of 59
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
18 of 59
Claims Received Stage
Application Form and signed Terms of Reference
provided by Claimant
Document: Application Form and Terms of Reference
Automatic forward to ALTPostOffice@hsf.com
Process Lead: HSF Belfast
HSF will face practical difficulties in downloading
material from an external email address. An
automatic forward from the PO email address will
make this easier. There should also be an automatic
bec so that HSF can see any emails sent from the PO
email address.
I
HSF London to collect hardcopy applications on a
daily basis and carry out scanning
Process Lead: HSF trainee/paralegal and HSF
reprographics team
As part of this, HSF London to email scanned
applications tof Y@postoffice.co.uk
(noting jard to
hsf.com). All data provided to HSF
must Bé Separated by reference to individual
claimants - this has notable implications for the time
needed to scan material, upload it to Relativity, etc.
¥
Application Form
Process Lead: HSF Belfast Review Manager/Flow
Manager
+
Does the Application Form raises issues that mean it
should be escalated?
Document: Escalation Criteria
HSF London to archive hardcopy applications
Process Lead: HSF trainee/paralegal
Hard copy applications to be held at HSF London
until resolution, at which point the documents will be
returned to the Claimant
Does the Application Form contain sufficient
information to allow the claim to enter the Scheme?
I I
Yes No
Process Lead: HSF Belfast Review
Manager Document: Template letter
Process Lead: HSF Belfast Review Manager/Flow Manager
and HSF ALT eDiscovery team lead
The claim will be logged using Relativity. Each Claimant will be
given an individual Claimant ID. The HSF ALT eDiscovery team
will create a saved search on Relativity with the Claimant ID to
process the documents provided by the Claimant and capture
key information regarding value of claim, ete. Documents will be
published into the Claimant's Relativity saved search applying
the individual Claimant ID as a prefix to the document ID(s).
HSF ALT eDiscovery team to notify HSF Belfast Review
Manager once this has been complete.
MI reporting opportunity.
Case proceeds to Eligibility
Assessment/Triage stage
Process Lead: HSF Belfast Review
Manager/Flow Manager
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL00128937
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Eligibility Assessment and Triage Stage
POL00128937
Having been logged on Relativity, case allocated to an HSF Belfast Assessment
Pe
Pod
Process Lead: HSF Belfast Review Manager/Flow Manager
‘The HSF Belfast Assessment team will be divided into a number of assessment pods,
comprising Case Assessors and a Pod Lead to oversee quality. The number of pods can
be scaled up or down depending on the flow of claims. We envisage starting with three
pods, each comprising one Pod Lead and two Case Assessors. As cases come in, we
can expand the number of Case Assessors in a pod (ideally to no more than five) and we
can, if necessary, expand the number of pods. It is envisaged that each Case Assessor
Key
*- Optional HSF
QCistrategy
touch point — can
be adapted
depending on
the complexity of
the claim
will, at any one point, have around four cases allocated to them, which will be at different
stages of the process.
Case Assessor to input data from Application Form onto Relativity
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Application Form
MI reporting opportunity
‘
Case Assessor to carry out initial eligibility assessment"
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead and [insert PO resource]
Document: Terms of Reference and Eligibility Criteria
This will require input from PO regarding contractual issues, criminal convictions, ete, if it
hasn't been provided already. Assessment to be recorded on Relativity.
7
Onan initial assessment, is the Claimant
Ce eligible for the Scheme? Ne
Case Assessor to carry out preliminary
See slide 14 for details regarding categorisation
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
This categorisation will be based on the initial information
available. It will be revisited at the assessment stage (see
slide 5). Once complete, the preliminary triage will be
recorded on Relativity.
Ineligible claims
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
Eligible claims
Claim to be referred back to Case Assessor to notify
Claimant
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Letter confirming eligibility (Letter 3)
‘Any changes to claim categorisation/eligibility to be reflected
on Relativity. Case Assessor to consider whether any
relevant material that is missing should be requested at this
stage. Guidance to be sought from Pod Lead/HSF London.
¥
Case Assessor to initiate document
collation/investigation process:
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
19 of 59
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Document Collation/Investigation Stage
< Key
* - Optional HSF
QC/strategy touch
point — can be
adapted depending
‘on the complexity
of the claim
Parts of claim related to shortfalls Parts of claim not related to shortfalls
sor to arrang
3s range fo ments to be upload Rel
ead: Relevant Pod Lead and HSF ALT eDiscovery team lead
I
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
20 of 59 Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Claims Assessment Stage (1)
POL00128937
Document collation/investigation complete and sent to
HSF Belfast, documents uploaded to Relativity
HSF Belfast mailbox to be set up
Key
*~ Optional HSF
QC/strategy touch point —
can be adapted depending
on the complexity of the
claim
appropriate
See slide 14 for details regarding categorisation
Process Lead: HSF Belfast Review Manager and Flow Manager
Pod Lead to re-evaluate categorisation and re-allocate to Case Assessor if
{
to review documentati let
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Document checklist (to be drafted and
completed with input from PO)
I
Is there missing information/documentation that
Yes — go to either PO or the Claimant may hold (and which has
No
slide 7 not already been confirmed as unavailable) that is
required for consideration of the claim?
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Assessment Criteria
Are there any relevant internal PO processes or
procedures that require clarification?
t
Is the Case Assessor satisfied the query been
resolved?*
Yes b>
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
Yes —————» No
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document
ssessment template
21 of 59
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Claims Assessment Stage (2)
Pod Lead to review assessment and
recommendation*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead with
oversight from HSF Belfast Review
Manager
Case Assessor to amend i F
= Is the Pod Lead satisfied with the
assessment and/or recommendation. No tand dation?
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead assessment and recommendation
No
Is the Pod Lead 2 to consider
satisfied that the feedback from SMI
SME feedback Process Lead: Is the SME satisfied that the relevant PO
should not affect the (I Relevant Pod Lead No process and procedures have been
assessment and Pod Lead may ask to properly understood?
discuss the matter
2
recommendation cae
Yes Yes
Case Assessor to ensure
SI nd ndation
Teady to be submitted to Panel three
clear days before relevant Panel
meeting —
See slide 9 for Decision-Making Panel I
process
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead _
Mi reporting opportunity
22 of 59 Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Further information sought from PO
Has PO confirmed it does not hold the relevant
POL00128937
Le information/documents?
uploads it to Relativity*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
te Is the Case Assessor satisfied the query been
resolved?”
Vv
Ist possible the Claimant may hold the Yes
information/documents?
Yes —go
to slide 8 Ne
Resume at slide 5
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
23 of 59
POL-0132239
POL00128937
ortfall Claim:
Further information sought from Claimant
‘ab 3 GLO Post-Settlement eme
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter (Letter 4)
There are two templates requesting further information. The first makes
straightforward requests for documents that cannot otherwise be found. The
second is more detailed, and requests information that is relevant to the legal
questions raised. The time taken to complete this step will depend on the
complexity of what is being requested and the guidance that accompanies
the request. Guidance should be sought from the Pod Lead and/or HSF
London
Ifo response is received within 28
days (or a different timeframe if agreed
with the Claimant)
The chaser letter should be sent the
working day after the previous deadline
expired. Only one chaser letter will be
sent at each stage
I
Response received from Claimant
Ifno response is received within 10 The Claimant may respond requesting
days (or a different timeframe if agreed more time, in which case the timeframes to
with the Claimant) the left should be adjusted to reflect
whatever is agreed
I I
Resume at slide 5
‘ch 2020-03/03/20
24 of 59 Board GLO Sub Committee - 03
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Decision-making/Outcome Stage (1)
Key
*- Optional HSF
QCistrategy touch point —
can be adapted depending
‘on the complexity of the
claim
Regular meetings of Decision-Making Panel to be organised
Process Lead: HSF London and PO Legal
Document: Decision-Making Panel Terms of Reference
The frequency of meetings will depend on the number of cases in the
‘Scheme and where those cases are at in the Scheme process.
¥
HSF Belfast to prepare and maintain list of all cases ready to be
considered by Panel
Process Lead: HSF Belfast Review Manager/Flow Manager
Consideration to be given to any cases that should be given priority.
Mi reporting opportunity.
Seven days before relevant Panel meeting: HSF to identify five cases
to be considered at meeting
Process Lead: HSF London Associate and HSF Belfast Review
Manager/Flow Manager
The Panel aims to consider three cases per meeting — the additional
cases are available if there is time remaining at the meeting, otherwise
they will be held over until the next meeting.
¥
Three fore rele\ anel mé I: Case Assi email
the Claims Assessment Pack to the Panel members*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: The Claims Assessment Pack will consist of the claim
assessment form, recommendation and key documents.
¥
le! to meetin:
Process Lead: Panel members
All Panel members to have read each Claims Assessment Pack prior to
the meeting.
v
Process Lead: Panel members, Case Assessor(s), HSF Belfast
Review ManageriFlow Manager
See Decision Making Panel terms of reference for process for each
meeting. HSF Belfast Review Manager/Flow Manager to record outcome
in relation to each claim.
Mi reporting opportunity.
¥ ¥
Panel remit matter back to the Claims Assessment
Stage
¥ +
Case Assessor and Pod Lead to identify relevant step
Panel agree outcome in relation to the Claim
Fr to rec el
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead Should be re
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
See slide 5. To be reflected on Relativity.
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20 25 of 59
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Decision-making/Outcome Stage (2)
I
Case Assessor to draft outcome/settlement letter
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead and HSF London Associate
Document: Outcome/settlement letter template (Letter 6)
Draft letter to be reviewed and signed-off by HSF London or PO before it
is sent.
26 of 59
1
If no response is received within 28 days (or a different
timeframe if agreed with the Claimant)
{
Case Assessor to send chaser to Claimant*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead Response received from Claimant
Document: Template letter (Letter 7 The Claimant may respond requesting more time, in
The chaser letter should be sent the working day after the which case the timeframes to the left should be adjusted
previous deadline expired. Only one chaser letter will be to reflect whatever is agreed
sent at each stage.
+ t
If no response is received within 10 days (or a different The offer is accepted and the Claimant
timeframe if agreed with the Claimant) returns the signed settlement agreement
1 I
Case Assessor to send Claimant letter withdrai Case Assessor to send
offer and closing matter* acknowledgement I
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter (Letter 8) Document: Template letter (Letter 9)
Relativity to be updated accordingly. Please note the Relativity to be updated accordingly. HSF
claim may be re-opened and the offer renewed if the London trainee/paralegal to arrange return
Claimant makes contact after this time. ofdocuments.
MI reporting opportunity MI reporting opportunity
The offer is refused
2.
Case Assessor to send letter acknowledging
refusal and offering Good Faith Meeting*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter (Letter 10)
The template letter asks the Claimant to set out their
reasons for refusing the offer (if they have not already).
‘While it would be helpful to have this information,
failure to provide it should not stop the matter
progressing to the dispute resolution process.
4
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Mi reporting opportunity
10
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Dispute Resolution Process — Good Faith Meeting
Please note this stage is not currently included in the HSF Belfast costs estimate.
Key
* - Optional HSF QCistrategy
Claimant does not respond to offer of Good Rei pant oan bowdenied
Faith Meeting within 28 days depending on the complexity
of the claim
Claimant takes up offer of Good Faith Meeting
¥ +
If no response is received within 10 days (or a evant Case Assessor or Pod Lead to contact Claimat
different timeframe if agreed with the Claimant) arrange day and time for Good Faith Meeting*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
+ Recommended that this take place by email for record-keeping
purposes. Mailbox details to be confirmed. Whether this is carried
Case Assessor to send Claimant letter out by the Pod Lead or the Case Assessor will depend on the
withdrawing any offer and closing matter* number of cases reaching this stage.
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter [to be drafted] y
Relativity to be updated accordingly. Please note
the claim may be re-opened if the Claimant makes ‘Three days before Good Faith Meeting: Case Assessor or Pod
contact after this time. Lead to review the Claims Assessment Pack and Decision-
Mi reporting opportunity ‘Making Panel Outcomes
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: The Claims Assessment Pack
Case Assessor or Pod Lead to attend Good Faith Meeting
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Meetings to take place by telephone on a without prejudice and
confidential basis. Any agreement to be in-principle only and
subject to contract. Authority of attendee to be considered.
t Attendee to provide notes on Relativity following meeting
Agreement reached in principle
Claim Assessor to draft outcome/settlement letter*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead and HSF London
Associate
Document: Letter template (Letter 11) > Response recelved trom Claimant.
Draft letter to be reviewed and signed-off by HSF London or The Claimant may respond requesting more time, in
PO Le Heent which case the timeframes to the left should be adjusted
to reflect whatever is agreed
‘ 4 4
If no response is received within 28 days (or a different
timeframe if agreed with the Claimant) The offer is accepted and the i
Claimant returns the signed The offer is refused or 10
+ settlement agreement at
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead Gogh hupensunto send
Document: Template letter [to be drafted] acknowledgement letter I Case Assessor to send letter
Process Lead: Relevant Pod I offering Escalation Meetina~
¥v Lead I Process Lead: Relevant Pod
Document: Templateletter Lead
. . an I ocument: Template letter (Letter
If no response is received within 10 days (or a different {Letter 14 I i
timeframe if agreed with the Claimant) Relativity to be updated 10)
ig accordingly, HSF London The template letter asks the
trainee/paralegal to arrange return I I Claimant to set out their reasons for
- ¥ - ofdocantette II tefusing the offer (if they have not
Mi epodieg eopon nn already). While it would be helpful
send Claimant I id ee to have this information, failure to
and closing matter* provide it should not stop the matter
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead progressing through the dispute
Document: Template letter [to be drafted] resolution process.
Relativity to be updated accordingly. Please note the claim
may be re-opened and the offer renewed if the Claimant
makes contact after this time.
Mi reporting opportunity
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20 27 of 59
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Dispute Resolution Process — Escalation Mee ng
Please note this stage is not currently included in the HSF Belfast costs estimate,
Claimant does not respond to offer of
Escalation Meeting within 28 days
+
*- Optional if QCistrategy
touch point — can be adapted
depending on the complexity
‘of the claim
id ia TI
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter [to be drafted]
Claimant takes up offer of Escalation Meeting
¥
Ifno response is received within 10 days (or a
different timeframe if agreed with the Claimant)
+
Case Assessor to send Claimant letter
withdrawing any offer and closing matter*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter [to be drafted]
Relativity to be updated accordingly. Please note
the claim may be re-opened if the Claimant makes
contact after this time.
MI reporting opportunity
Agreement reached in principle
Y
Claim Assessor to draft outcome/settlement letter*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead and HSF London
Associate
Document: Letter template (Letter 11
Draft letter to be reviewed and signed-off by HSF London or
PO before it is sent.
¥
The Claimant may respond requesting more time, in
which case the timeframes to the left should be adjusted
to reflect whatever is agreed
If no response is received within 28 days (or a different
timeframe if agreed with the Claimant)
1
4
¥
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter [to be drafted]
The offer is accepted and the
Claimant returns the signed
settlement agreement
The offer is refused or no
agreement is reached
¥
¥
¥v
Ifno response is received within 10 days (or a different
timeframe if agreed with the Claimant)
¥
28 of 59
Case Assessor to send Claimant letter withdrawing offer
i
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter [to be drafted]
Relativity to be updated accordingly. Please note the claim
may be re-opened and the offer renewed if the Claimant
makes contact after this time.
Mi reporting opportunity
Case Assessor to send
acknowledgement letter
Process Lead: Relevant Pod
Lead
Document: Template letter
Letter 11)
Relativity to be updated
accordingly. HSF London
trainee/paralegal to arrange return
of documents.
Mi reporting opportunity
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
Case Assessor to send letter
jiation*®
Process Lead: Relevant Pod
Lead
Document: Template letter (Letter
The template letter asks the
Claimant to set out their reasons for
refusing the offer (if they have not
already). While it would be helpful
to have this information, failure to
provide it should not stop the matter
progressing through the dispute
resolution process.
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
POL00128937
Dispute Resolution Process — Mediation
Please note this stage is not currently included in the HSF Belfast costs estimate.
Claimant does not respond to offer of mediation
Key
*- Optional HSF QCistrategy
touch point — can be adapted
depending on the complexity
of the claim
within 28 days
¥
id r to Claii
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter [to be drafted]
¥
Ifno response is received within 10 days (or a
different timeframe if agreed with the Claimant)
+
Case Assessor to send Claimant letter
withdrawing any offer and closing matter*
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter [to be drafted]
Relativity to be updated accordingly. Please note
the claim may be re-opened if the Claimant makes
contact after this time.
MI reporting opportunity
Claimant takes up offer of mediation
¥
Relevant Case Assessor to refer matter to Wandsworth
Mediation Services to arrange mediation
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Terms of reference for mediation and template
mediation agreement (to be provided)
Recommended that this take place by email for record-keeping
purposes.
Agreement reached and settlement agreement
signed at mediation
No agreement reached — claim above £10,000
No agreement reached - claim below £10,000
t
1
referencing arbitration
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter (Letter 14.2)
Relativity to be updated accordingly. Any subsequent
arbitration to be considered individually by PO.
Mi reporting opportunity
Case Assessor to send acknowledgement letter
referencing County Court Small Claims Track
Process Lead: Relevant Pod Lead
Document: Template letter (Letter 14.1
Relativity to be updated accordingly. Any subsequent
claim to be handled on a BAU basis.
Mi reporting opportunity
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20 29 of 59
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Clai Scheme
Claim Categorisation — Categorises 1, 2 and 3
caTecony 2
Inauddtion to characteristics dented by Post Ofc, clams falling nt this category wi:
*Comprise of 1 claim for alleged repaid shortfalls only, with no more than 5 separate shortfalls identified as incurring that loss.
S pages
‘*Not require any further information from either Post Office or the Claimant at any stage in the process after the Post Offic e investigation report and file build is
Fess per eutag (Ges Of eapsonlt temtprel ase) dd ele sige ish )ou bs sosras falar ane eee Gaatex colon we vee pe aed
Proceed through each stage of the claims process only once.
{Sula bean pt teseef dice ta nets ne an soba to» pba nl sllig ro slelion i Wigton soy na Wife atis tie oe
Garritan lle at an hour fe
Alpe) tn catego wi se feus ovat cesta cf te does ber (6 digg uy clan when al suis capa teor any nag ofthe
Morea Wilts cecbes Gi octomind Wr al oie eeEoe) cas
catesonv2
In ation to characteristic denied by Post Ofc, claims falling nto this category wil:
Verses ey ernst res of fons (one fine tesorcs of bt Ef aieged che ae hs Wal fave ne ioe Bran AOSoparae slogea spriele Merges
ecu ne ie flees ian 100 locumsrs Unclai ue datums cay so weaved a Offee etariena)(¢s suet nec Sosrient wil tave sy eres?
ae
01 follow up email to the Post Office and/or Claimant in relation to a response.
Rese po tnse stata ss bine selena amos cewek cece ake vs reer ngy'es hes eters Sissel abdareeee clone:
Fie iree a aia oo decir ce ies orepnicane wc ccioae
foceot vent crdl eiecivetiniepeecuo ore
Feta nikseaa oi gill seen 16D iets
Individual claim categorisation will depend on the circumstances of the case and is subject to change. Any claim which falls outside category 2 will move to category 3.
careconv3
In addition to characteristics identified by Post Office, the following cases will fall into category 3:
Bevin wet falls outside of the scope of category 1 and 2 {at any stage of the claims process) will be charged by hourly rate according to the fee earner grades
Fant wth coeex ex san/or anal
Fess tue reauie kpt om e pon omey aga! ar ect) aus Scutic feqare nccou ng ptr
‘heft S cases asessed by HSE
baal len feanr nabs of sitar cane al wth le enlegay] HEE wll cooAderStamben)¢ en siding I foe ion er gtea aks
IRseeb Tota sete waste canal gore csrecorma clas bie 1s) ged) cece iesvine and ete ae on tbe creo eee aie ey ih
be billed according to the time spent and will therefore represent a saving to the Post Office.
30 of 59 Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 Mat
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Appendix 3
WY HERBERT
= MITH
Afj\S FREEHILLS
WEMES-ISOd O19 € GEL
Og SUUIEID I1e;LOYS SUOISIH - UAL
~MPIWLWOD Gng O19 peog
Yos
COST ESTIMATE FOR POST OFFICE
HISTORIC SHORTFALL SCHEME
HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS
ALTERNATIVE LEGAL SERVI CES
27 FEBRUARY 2020
g
POL-0132239
- ean
POL00128937
OUR PROPOSAL
YOUR PROJEC
You require:
* A cost effective, flexible model for managing historical shortfall claims received from Post Masters in relation to the alleged bugs in the
Horizon system.
* A review of a selection of Post Office held documentation and investigation reports, Post Master claims and supporting documentation
provided by Claimants (which will vary from to claim to claim).
* Analysis of the merits and deficiencies of each claim accompanied with proposed outcomes.
“ A team to work independently, reporting and escalating to you regularly.
* Flexibility in resourcing (both relating to numbers and seniority) — at this stage it envisaged that the majority of historical shortfall claims will
be relatively simple but our model can adapt quickly to cater for variations in scale or complexity.
*» The review of individual claims made by Post Masters under the Historic Shortfall Scheme. Examples of claims may include claims in
respect of shortfalls, remuneration based claims (eg suspension, notice pay etc) and consequential losses (eg personal injury, stigma,
capital losses, insolvency related losses, loss of opportunity, interest and penalties etc).
OUR OFFERING
Our Alternative Legal Services (ALT) team will:
*» Bring our experience of designing solutions for clients on claims assessment and complaints handling projects on high profile and sensitive
matters. Our high profile clients choose to work with us because they trust that we will carry out reputationally sensitive and complex work
whilst delivering cost and time savings.
*» Provide a dedicated and knowledgeable team to ensure high quality output at competitive rates, which can be adapted to meet demand.
“+ Respond by scaling our team up and down as required based on case flow and the complexity of claims.
** Implement streamlined processes to promote efficiency and ensure all claims are dealt with promptly.
“+ Work as an extension of your in-house team to deliver a “one team” approach.
“ Review claims using the HSF Relativity review platform to review the documents and prepare the assessment.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM itt
POL-0132239
HOW WE
INTEGRATED
SERVICE
VALUE
PROPOSITION
TECHNOLOGY
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
POL00128937
WORK
ALT is comprised of eDiscovery and legal review teams across 11 hubs around the world that work as one integrated global
practice group and support the HSF Disputes Practice in each region across both local and multi-jurisdictional matters.
Alan Watts and Catherine Emanuel, based in the London HSF Disputes team, have worked on a number of matters with the global
ALT practice and are experienced in providing their clients with the integrated ALT and Disputes offering, providing truly innovative
legal service delivery to their clients.
Together with the HSF Disputes case team, we can ensure a seamless and integrated service which incorporates the entire claims
assessment journey from initial claims assessment through to the presentation of outcomes.
We provide a risk-wrapped approach, with HSF having oversight of all stages of a matter thereby saving time and costs against
using third party providers, where additional costs of supervision and knowledge gap bridging are likely.
Our ALT team works with the Disputes case team as one unit to ensure efficient and robust workflows are in place, removing the
need for multiple providers and thereby:
. limiting risk;
. increasing efficiency in the traditional delivery of legal services; and
. realising overall cost savings for our clients by ensuring a robust legal process is in place to underpin complex claims
assessment matters.
We will design bespoke workflows according to the requirements of the exercise and we use all available technology and expertise
to maximise efficiency.
Itis our objective to save costs for clients. We have a strong track record of achieving cost and time efficiencies for clients.
Herbert Smith Freehills (UK, US & EMEA) hosts a fully managed on premise Relativity instance in London.
We take the protection of client information very seriously. We know that data management and protection is key to our clients. As
such, the firm is certified to ISO-27001 and has adopted best practice security controls.
POL-0132239
6910 ve
OZ/EO/E0-0ZOZ YAW EO - esp IWWOD Gng C79 pleog
OUR CLAIMS ASSESSMENT EXPERIENCE
CUSTOMER FILE
ASSESSMENT
HSF advised a major bank on its
risks and exposures in relation to
certain lending as part of a time-
critical and sensitive investigation
ALT eDiscovery and legal review
teams supported the legal team to
deliver an end-to-end and fully
integrated solution for the bank.
+ ALT eDiscovery teams worked
with the client to:
co-ordinate the retrieval of
customer files, and
catalogue and process the
files onto HSF’s secure
electronic document
management system for
the Belfast team’s review
An ALT Belfast team of
assessors reviewed the files
securely and completed
assessment forms and
chronologies of key events
The file assessment decisions
made by the team fed directly into
the frontline legal team’s risk
assessment and strategic advice
for the client.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM __iosiussesrcenscensaasiese eer cantce rn creat aD SOE ES PE I DDE DE I IE LEE LEE EEL ELE DELLE DOSE.
REGULATORY
CONSEQUENTIAL
LOSS ASSESSMENT
A dedicated Belfast assessment.
team worked with the HSF
London legal team to deliver
consequential loss analysis for
financial services client.
-HSF's ALT Belfastteam
assessed over 600 files and
completed detailed sectetsdils
forms.
"+ Seamless integra
HSF London, Belfast and the
client's operations team was
key to the successful delivery :
of the proj
The review was neces by
‘senior lawyers in Belfast
Jeading assessment teams, —
working with the client to refine
and improve processes.
“Secondments from our London
and Belfast offices to the _
client's in-house team ensured
consistency, é
We managed resource fey
In response to work flow. -
We offered fixed and
discounted pricing
arrangements.
INSOURCED CLAIMS
ASSESSMENT
HSF supported a financial
services client to undertake a
high profile past business review.
An ALT Belfast team with sector
experience was seconded to the
Bank's project team to assist with
case assessment and provide
day-to-day legal support.
The ALT team supported the
Bank’s in-house team by:
* preparing detailed
assessments, including
analysis of direct and
consequential loss;
acting as a quality control
function on assessments
prepared by the Bank's in-
house team;
presenting complaints
outcome recommendations to
the Bank's in-house approval
panels; and
preparing review outcome
documentation and bespoke
customer communications.
CONSUMER
CLAIMS
Our ALT Belfast team works with
a UK telecommunications
provider to deliver a collaborative,
process-driven and cost-effective
solution to consumer claims
management.
+ Our team delivers legal
services related to volume
claims management, resolving
or defending claims as
appropriate.
We offer a dedicated team
which flexes up and down in
response to case flow, so the
client does not pay for idle
time.
We worked with the client to
devise efficient processes to
ensure quality and
consistency.
The client has described the
ALT service as slick and
timely, and an entirely positive
experience.
POL00128937
AWBYOS SUIIEID IIPAIOYS SUO}SIHY - JEWIAMIES-IS0q O19 € GEL
Wa
POL-0132239
POL00128937
PROJ ECT OVE RVIEW Key: actioned by Post Office
actioned by HSF/ALT
Claim Received Triage
+ Log claim on tracker * Identify missing application
: * Trigger document collection information
Scheme Publicised process emma ° Assess eligibility
* Send claim & terms of + Further information requests to
reference to assessment team Claimant and Post Office
AWBYOS SUIIEID IIPAIOYS SUO}SIHY - JEWIAMIES-IS0q O19 € GEL
Claims Assessment
* Tailored information request sent to Post
Office (if required) Panel
: * Tailored information request sent to Claimant :
Document Collation (if required) * Presentation of
dations at Post
* Claims assessed by reference to assessment feconten
criteria and recommendation made on merits Office panel for approval
and quantum
+ Prepare Panel pack
Outcome
* Prepare outcome letter to
Claimant
Ws
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
POL-0132239
CLAIMS ASSESSMENT
What we do
Review evidence provided by the Claimants and
internal documents collected by Post Office by
reference to the Assessment Criteria.
Request additional information when required from the
Claimant or the Post Office prior to completing
assessment.
Review additional information or evidence provided by
Post Office and/or Claimant following a further
information request.
Engage with Post Office Technical or Legal teams and
accounting support where necessary.
Complete a Claims Assessment Pack to include
recommendations on liability and quantum to be
approved by an internal Post Office Historic Shortfalls
Panel comprised of senior stakeholders with relevant
technical knowledge.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
CLAIMS ASSESSMENT & DECISION MAKING
DECISION MAKING
What we do
Prepare Claims Assessment Pack and circulate in
advance to those appointed to the internal Post Office
Historic Shortfalls Panel.
Present recommendations on liability and quantum to
panel members.
Offer panel opportunity to ask questions in relation to
the recommendations made.
Assist with any further discussions at panel meeting.
Record panel decision and prepare outcome
communication to Claimant.
POL00128937
6
POL-0132239
HSF ALT
ALT will allocate claims to one of 3 categories depending on the circumstances/complexity of the claim.
£381,500 £763,000 £1,907,500
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Case Specific * This estimate is for the end to end process, from receipt of the claim through to the outcome
: communication to the Claimant.
Estimate
Assumptions + Category 1 and 2 claims will be billed on a fixed fee basis.
+ Based on the estimated volumes above and for the purposes of this estimate we have assumed:
o An average split of cases by category based on 35% of claims within category 1, 35% in
category 2 and 30% in category 3.
o An estimated average cost of £5,600 for each category 3 claim.
o Once the actual volume and complexity of claims is known, this estimate will be subject to
revision.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM _ssszseespesesreqwnee same pn zantac g AISI OE A AAD EL PELL EE OLLIE OO EOL E IOI DEEL OTE
Case Specific Estimated Costs
POL00128937
ISOd O1D € GEL
©
©
Ba
a
o
£2,300 £3,800 Cost per file based on time spent
7
POL-0132239
HSF ALT C
End to End
Legal Project Suppo Management
rocess One month secondment to Post Office Senior Management time First month
Legal Project @&
Supportand &
Management
Legal Project @&
Support and
Management f@
Estimate
Assumptions
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
Free of charge Free of charge Capped at £50,000
ALT are experienced in providing legal project support and management.
To assist Post Office with the design and set up of the historical shortfall scheme, ALT will provide a qualified
team member on secondment to Post Office for a period of one month. The estimated cost benefit of this, to
Post Office, is approximately £40,000.
Legal project support and management is assistance with the project overall but not on individual cases
(except for irregular bespoke reporting requests). For example, work completed on workflow set up; project
management including triage, allocation and tracking of claims; communication with internal Post Office teams;
ensuring guidance notes are regularly updated and shared with the teams; reporting and irregular bespoke
tasks; attending Post Office project meetings; amongst other un-defined tasks.
Legal project support and management costs will vary over the lifetime of the project and will be dependant on
the volume and categorisation of the claims received.
Costs in relation to some legal project support will be incurred over the course of the project, whilst other costs
will be greater either at the beginning or end of the matter.
Legal project support and management costs will be charged at an hourly rate.
For the first month we will cap legal project support and management fees at £50,000 for the end to end
process. This along with the value add of a qualified team member seconded to the Post Office, will support
you in designing a process which will drive efficiencies and deliver the project at a lower cost overall.
Once the actual volume and complexity of claims is known, we will work with you to agree an appropriate fixed
monthly retainer which will ensure certainty.
POL00128937
POL-0132239
eDiscovery
stimated Costs
£123,550 to £186,300
+ The HSF eDiscovery team will consult on this matter and assist with establishing the most efficient
workflow for the claims assessment on the Relativity platform.
eDiscovery + Support may include, but is not limited to:
Services
°
°
°
°
e000
1001+
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
Processing and hosting data
Database management
Designing a bespoke workflow
Advising on best practice; utilising structured and conceptual analytics; trouble shooting technical
issues
Technical time creating bespoke reporting requirements, eg scripting template reports
Supporting/consulting on project queries
Providing reports on data (which do not fall within the weekly MI report)
Undefined tasks which may be required depending on how the project evolves
+ eDiscovery fee earner time will be charged according to the fee earner grades below:
Ene
GBP
Manager, eDiscovery (ALT) 300
Senior Executive (ALT) 235
Executive (ALT) 210
Analyst, eDiscovery (ALT) 165
* Data processing on the HSF instance of Relativity are provided below on a tiered basis, reducing as the
volume of data increases.
0-250 65
251-500 55
501-1000 45
35
* Data hosting on the HSF instance of Relativity is charged at £15 per GB per month.
POL00128937
ASIH - JuaWeI
©
Zz
ng
POL-0132239
POL00128937
HSF ALT does not charge any additional costs for the following, unlike some third party vendors:
ASIH - JuaWeI
+ Email threading
+ Near de-duplication
eDiscovery + Predictive coding
Value Proposition [Rio-weneterns
©
Zz
+ Promoting documents to review
+ Complex keyword searching
+ User licence fees
eDiscovery
Assumption:
* This estimate was prepared based on assumptions regarding the level of support required on a monthly
basis. We will revise the estimate when the volume and scope of the data and services required are
known.
* The monthly costs will vary as the project progresses, depending on the volume and frequency of data
uploads, the number of Claimants and reporting requirements.
+ The lower estimate is based on a volume of 20GB and the upper estimate is based on 100GB.
+ eDiscovery costs to include technical time building the workflow/reporting scripts, database
management and dealing with irregular bespoke requests will all be billed on an hourly rate.
+ eDiscovery technology fees to include Relativity hosting and processing fees will be charged per GB.
Hosting fees are charged on a monthly basis.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM sanmmansmamnnnnssmsnsnassunessusemenassunsesnessensustantnsassensunsssstensnsnenansmenesenmemnmmmmemmmmms II 1)
POL-0132239
POL00128937
HSF ALT COST ESTIMATE
INDI IVE OVERALL ESTIMATE
eDiscovery (12 months) £186,300
2 Legal Project Support and Management (12 months) £600,000
Case Specific (500 claims) £1,907,500
Estimated Cost £2,693,800
Case Specific + This estimate is prepared for the purposes of budgeting only. We will re-estimate should the assumptions in
& this estimate prove incorrect.
Estimate
i + As per page 8 of this estimate we have agreed a cap for the first month for legal support and management
Assumptions costs. We will cap these fees at £50,000 for the end to end process.
+ For the purposes of this estimate only and until we have greater visibility of the level of support required, we
have estimated the cost of legal support based on a monthly cost which is equivalent to the month 1 cap.
However, these figures (post one month) are not capped. It would be our intention to provide a more accurate
estimate after the first month.
+ We have estimated the costs of the assessment of 500 Historic Shortfall claims as per the assumptions on
pages 7 of this estimate.
+ We have assumed eDiscovery costs at the upper end of the estimated range as per the assumptions on pages
9 and 10 of this estimate.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM janet LE PSEA LEE AEN AEA LEONE ADNLEIE LEIA a PROF te BOS at PE BOARS REPEAL won ‘ * W414
POL-0132239
HSF ALT
CATEGORY 1
Claims falling into this category will:
Comprise of 1 claim for alleged repaid shortfalls only, with no more than
5 separate shortfalls identified as incurring that loss.
Require the review of less than 50 documents (including the claimant's
claim and internal Post Office documents). It is assumed each document
will have on average 3 — 5 pages.
Not require any further information from either Post Office or the
Claimant at any stage in the process after the Post Office investigation
report and file build is complete.
Require no more than 1 Post Office panel for approval, which should
take no longer than 1 hour to prepare, present and answer queries.
Follow up work is not required.
Require no more than 1 non-complex final outcome communication to
the Claimant.
Proceed through each stage of the claims process only once.
Should the Claimant not accept the outcome of the assessment and
proceed to a good faith meeting, mediation or litigation, any time incurred
after the outcome is communicated will be billed at an hourly rate.
Individual claim categorisation will depend on the circumstances of the
case and is subject to change. Any claim which falls outside category 1, at
any stage of the claims process, will be assessed to determine if it shall
move to category 2 or 3.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
CATEGORY 2
Claims falling into this category will:
Comprise of up to 2 categories of loss. If one of the categories of loss is
for alleged shortfalls, it will have no more than 10 separate alleged
shortfalls identified.
Require the review of less than 100 documents (including the claimant's
claim and internal Post Office documents). It is assumed each document
will have on average 3 — 5 pages.
Once the Post Office investigation report and file build are complete,
require no more than:
o 1 further information request to the Post Office and the Claimant;
and
1 follow up email to the Post Office and/or Claimant in relation to
a response.
Require no more than 1 Post Office panel for approval, which should take
no longer than 1.5 hours to prepare, present and answer queries.
Require no more than 1 non-complex final outcome communication to
Claimant.
Proceed through each stage of the claims process only once.
Should the Claimant not accept the outcome of the assessment and
proceed to a good faith meeting, mediation or litigation, any time incurred
after the outcome is communicated will be billed at an hourly rate.
Individual claim categorisation will depend on the circumstances of the
case and is subject to change. Any claim which falls outside category 2 will
move to category 3.
W412
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
HSF ALT
CATEGORY 3 -
The following cases will fall into category 3:
+ Any claim which falls outside of the scope of category 1 and 2 (at any stage of the claims process) will be charged by hourly rate according gz
to the fee earner grades provided below. Es
+ Claims with complex facts and/or analysis.
* Cases which require input from the Post Office legal or technical teams or which require accounting support.
+ The first 5 cases assessed by HSF.
Should a significant number of similar claims fall within this category, we will consider proposing an additional fixed fee for such claims.
If a claim falling within category 3 contains more than 2 categories of loss but can easily be assessed, in less time and at a lower cost than
category 1 or 2 claims, they will be billed according to the time spent and will therefore represent a saving to the Post Office.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM WA13
POL-0132239
POL00128937
HSF ALT I!
+ This estimate is in GBP and is exclusive of VAT.
+ Where work is undertaken on assessment or legal project support and management at an hourly rate the
following will apply:
REEL
piece
260
225 3
200 a
225 g
210 3
125 S
100
100
+ Director, Head of Practice and Senior Manager time will be provided free of charge.
+ Assumptions underpinning these cost estimates are set in each category of costs. As the project
progresses, if any of the assumptions underpinning this estimate prove to be inaccurate, the cost estimate
will be revised and we will discuss this with you prior to doing so.
* Once the actual volume and complexity of claims is known, this estimate will be subject to revision.
+ This estimate is subject to review after the first 5 cases have completed the assessment phase to ensure
that the assumptions underpinning the assessment are accurate.
+ We will utilise the appropriate fee earner grade to drive efficiencies.
+ This estimate does not include a review for any additional coding which may be required for the purposes
Of litigation or anything outside of the scope of the claims assessment.
* This estimate does not include work carried out in relation to a master excel or additional investigatory or
analytical tasks which may be required. These will be charged at our an hourly rate.
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
POL-0132239
OZ/EO/E0-OZOZ YEW CO - BeWWWOD qng O19 pieog
65 10 Sp
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
BANGKOK
Herbert Smith Freehills Thailand) Ltd
BEIJING
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Beijing Representative Office (UK)
BELFAST
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
BERLIN
Herbert Smith Freehills Germany LLP
BRISBANE
Herbert Smith Freehills
BRUSSELS
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
DUBAI
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
DUSSELDORF
Herbert Smith Freehills Germany LLP
FRANKFURT
Herbert Smith Freehills Germany LLP
HONG KONG
Herbert Smith Freehills
JAKARTA
Hiswara Bunjamin and Tandjung
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP associated firm
JOHANNESBURG
Herbert Smith Freehills South Africa LLP
KUALA LUMPUR
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
ULP0010119-FGN
LONDON
Herbert Smith Freebills LLP
MADRID
Herbert Smith Freebills Spain LLP
MELBOURNE
Herbert Smith Freehills
MILAN
Studio Legale Associato in association with
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Moscow
Herbert Smith Freeills CIS LLP
NEW YORK
Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP
PARIS
Herbert Smith Freehills Pais LLP
PERTH
Herbert Smith Freehills
RIYADH
The Law Office of Nasser Al-Hamdant
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP associated firm
SEOUL
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Foreign Legal Consultant Office
SHANGHAI
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Shanghai Representative Office (UK)
SINGAPORE
Herbert Smith Feeehills LLP
SYDNEY
Herbert Smith Freehills
TOKYO
Herbert Smith Freehills
POL00128937
AWAY SWIIE/D IIEAJOYS UO}SIH - UEWIARIESS0d OID € GEL
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement
Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Appendix 4
Historic Shortfall Scheme: Eligibility and triage
Eligibility criteria for entry into the Scheme
Certain cases should be escalated for urgent and expedited investigation and/or early contact from
Post Office (such as the postmaster’s Area Manager / a multiple relationship manager) and/or
welfare professionals. An external support telephone line will be provided so that individuals can
seek assistance or be referred for professional support
Judgement should be exercised in considering these cases, erring on the side of caution. Should
there be any doubt whatsoever, guidance should be sought from HSF London and/or Post Office.
Examples for escalation include:
Applications that suggest that the applicant, or someone close to them, is suffering or at
risk of suffering imminent personal harm (including but not limited to stress, depression,
mental health issues, insomnia, panic attacks, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm,
substance misuse, abuse, violence, overdose, suicide).
Applicants who are terminally ill or suffering decreasing capacity
Applications that suggest that the applicant is at risk of significant current or imminent
financial harm, such as default, insolvency, repossession or other extreme financial
hardship, such as inability to pay basic living expenses
Applicants who are currently suspended and whose suspension pay is continuing.
Applicants who are known to be active in the media
Applicants who are multiples (i.e. who operate multiple Post Office branches rather than
being a pluralist.
Routes for escalation
On a case-by-case basis, routes for escalation may include:
The application to be expedited through the scheme.
The applicant to be contacted/visited by the relevant Area Manager.
The applicant to be referred to, or directly contacted by, the welfare helpline.
The applicant to be contacted personally by someone else within Post Office.
In the case of multiples, the relevant multiple relationship manager to be alerted to the
claim and the applicant to be contacted/visited by the relevant manager, if deemed
appropriate.
Strictly Confidential
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Histo
i POST OFFICE LIMITED
Append ix 5 (“the Company”)
Terms of Reference of the Historic Shortfalls Claims Scheme Decision
Making Panel
The Historic Shortfalls Claims Scheme (“the Scheme”)! has been constituted to
address past issues regarding Post Office’s point-of-sale accounting system, Horizon.
The Historic Shortfalls Claims Scheme Decision Making Panel (“the Panel”) is a panel
set up by the Group Litigation (“GLO”) Sub-Committee from which it derives its
authority. The Panel’s authority is always subject to the powers and duties of the GLO
Sub-Committee, as set out in the Sub-Committee’s Terms of Reference.
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Panel is to determine outcomes for claims in the Scheme. The
outcomes determined by the Panel shall be communicated to Scheme’s
applicants. If an outcome is accepted by an applicant, it shall be binding on both
the Company and the applicant. If an outcome is not accepted by an applicant,
the claim shall enter the Dispute Resolution Process contemplated in the
Scheme’s Terms of Reference.
B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Panel shall:
1. review Scheme claims that:
i. are eligible for the Scheme pursuant to the Scheme’s Eligibility
Criteria?;
ii. have been investigated through the Scheme; and
iii. are presented to the Panel;
2. determine outcomes (including financial settlement offers) for Scheme
claims to be communicated to Scheme applicants;
3. determine financial settlement offers up to the amount of £100,000 per
claim;
4. approve for recommendation to the GLO Sub-committee that financial
settlement offers in excess of £100,000 be accepted and provide written
reasons to support this;
5. refer Scheme claims back to the investigation stage to undergo further
investigation where appropriate;
6. convene decision-making sub-panels as required, which shall derive their
authority from this Panel; and
7. determine at least the first 25 Scheme claims presented to the Panel.
Subject to the volume of Scheme claims received and the total monetary
value of all claims, the Panel may thereafter direct claims to be determined
1 The Scheme’s Terms of Reference approved by the GLO Sub-Committee
2 The Scheme’s Eligibility Criteria approved by the GLO Sub-Committee
INTERNAL 1
b Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20 47 of 59
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Histo
48 of 59
Post Office Limited
Terms of Reference of Historic Shortfalls Claims Scheme Decision Making Panel
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
by one or more sub-panels. The Panel shall review a sufficient sample of
determinations reached by the sub-panel to its satisfaction, and will also
hear any claims escalated to it by any sub-panel for reasons of complexity
or sensitivity.
COMPOSITION AND GOVERNANCE
Membership
The Panel’s members shall comprise:
i. One representative from Post Office’s Operations Department;
ii. One representative from Post Office’s Finance Department; and
iii. One legal adviser from an external law firm.
Members of the Panel shall be appointed by the Group General Counsel
from time to time. Members shall have the power to delegate their
attendance and voting rights at Panel meetings to a colleague within their
business unit, or law firm, subject to the approval of the Group General
Counsel.
Quorum & Voting
A meeting will only be quorate when all three panel members or their
delegates are present. Each Panel member shall have one vote each.
Decisions will be taken by a majority of two. Any member of the Panel may
vote to escalate a proposed decision in any case to the GLO Board Sub-
Committee.
Meetings
Panel meetings shall be convened by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (“HSF”).
HSF shall have responsibility for the administrative arrangements for
convening Panel meetings, including sending meeting invitations and
providing meeting room facilities as required.
Panel meetings shall be chaired by the legal adviser from the external law
firm.
The Panel shall convene on a weekly basis following the commencement of
the Scheme, with ad hoc or additional standing meetings to take place as
required and subject to the agreement of the Panel members.
Notice of each Panel meeting shall be given to all those entitled to attend
at least three working days before the meeting.
INTERNAL 2
b Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL00128937
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post
fall Claims
Post Office Limited
Terms of Reference of Historic Shortfalls Claims Scheme Decision Making Panel
POL00128937
16. Oneor more representatives from HSF’s Belfast office (‘HSF Belfast”) who
have assessed the claims before the Panel (the “Case Assessors”) will
attend the Panel meeting to present their assessments and
recommendations.
17. Meetings may be held in person or by telephone or other electronic means,
so long as all participants can contribute to the meeting simultaneously.
18. In respect of each claim for determination before the Panel, the Panel will
be emailed the supporting materials necessary to consider and determine
the outcome for the claim (“Claims Assessment Pack”) by the Case
Assessor a minimum of three days prior to the Panel meeting.
19. The Case Assessors shall record the outcomes for each claim that is
determined by the Panel at the meeting.
20. HSF Belfast shall maintain a tracker to produce management information
for the Company on Panel determinations, the value of financial offers made
to Scheme Applicants and the levels of acceptance. Such information will
be reported to the GLO Sub-Committee from time to time.
D. REVIEW AND APPROVAL
21. The Terms of Reference shall be approved by the GLO Sub-Committee and
shall be reviewed by the Panel no longer than six months after the
commencement of the Scheme. Any amendments to the Terms of
Reference shall be approved by the GLO Sub-Committee.
Approved by: Date: Version: Effective from:
Post Office GLO Sub-Committee 1.0
INTERNAL 3
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
49 of 59
POL-0132239
6S 0 0S
Od ang O19 pieog
@
®
9
8
=
a
3
$
is
8
8
2
8
g
S
8
Appendix 6
POL00128937
4
a
&
e
fa)
@
°
z
3
a
o
g
o
3
$
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Appendix 7
DRAFT: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
25-02-2020
HISTORIC SHORTFALL SCHEME — PRESS NOTICE
POST OFFICE ANNOUNCES HISTORIC SHORTFALL SCHEME FOR POSTMASTERS:
The Post Office today [date] announced the launch of a scheme to resolve past issues for
postmasters who encountered shortfalls in their branch accounts that they believe may have been
caused by computer system errors.
The Historic Shortfall Scheme follows the agreed settlement last year of group litigation between
Post Office and 555 mainly former postmasters.
During the court proceedings the current version of Horizon, the Post Office’s electronic point of sale
system, was found to be robust relative to comparable systems, but the Court highlighted issues
regarding previous versions which had the potential to affect branch accounting.
[Post Office XXXXX] said: “We are sorry for past events where we got things wrong and we are
committed to fairly resolving these. The scheme is an important step in re-setting our relationship
with postmasters and is designed to provide the opportunity for postmasters who were not part of
the group litigation to resolve issues they may have experienced.”
The scheme is open from today to both current and former postmasters. Full information for
potential applicants, including the eligibility criteria and application form, is available at [website
link] or by emailing [contact] or by writing to [details]. Applications should be received by midnight
on [insert date three months after first communication of the scheme] to be eligible.
Every eligible application will investigated and assessed. A dispute resolution procedure is available
for applicants not satisfied with the assessment outcome, providing further review stages and
independent mediation.
The independent mediation provider will be Wandsworth Mediation Services [link], a not-for-profit
community mediation service led by Stephen Ruttle QC who mediated the resolution of the group
litigation. Profits from the service are used for charitable purposes.
NOTE TO EDITORS:
Post Office Historic Shortfall Scheme
Full details of the scheme including eligibility criteria and the terms of reference which apply can be
found at [web link] or by emailing [xx««] or by request in writing to booxx]. Applications must be
made on the official scheme’s application form, obtainable at these same addresses, to be eligible.
Applicants should follow the advice provided regarding information to accompany their application.
The scheme relates to shortfalls allegedly caused by the historic versions of Horizon (HNG-X or prior)
systems. The Scheme will not deal with issues arising with the current version of Horizon (HNG-A)..
If, following all stages of the scheme, including independent mediation, agreed resolution is not
achieved, applicants may have recourse to the small claims civil courts process or to arbitration,
depending on the value of the claim.
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20 51 of 59
POL-0132239
O Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims
cheme
The principles and scope of the scheme have been endorsed by the mediators who helped to
negotiate the settlement of the group litigation.
Group Litigation
The group litigation between Post Office and 555 mainly former postmasters concluded following
successful mediation and agreed settlement in December 2019.
As part of the proceedings, the Court determined [15] technical matters concerning historic Horizon
systems used since around 2000. The most recent judgment relates to generic issues regarding
Horizon and its operation. It did not consider or determine individual cases.
A joint press statement was issued on 11 December 2019 by both parties involved in the litigation.
{link}
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
Appendix 8
HISTORIC SHORTFALL SCHEME
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1 Post Office intends to establish the Historic Shortfall Scheme (the "Scheme") to address
past issues regarding its point-of-sale accounting system, Horizon.
2. The purpose of the Scheme is to bring finality to current and former postmasters who, in
good faith, believe they may have been affected by shortfalls arising after 1 January 2000
and allegedly caused by the historic versions of Horizon (HNG-X or prior) ("Historic
Shortfalls"). The Scheme will not deal with issues arising with the current version of
Horizon (HNG-A)
3. All applications to join the Scheme must be received by Post Office by midnight on [insert
date three months after Post Office first publicly communicates the existence of the
Scheme]. they are not, Applicants will not be eligible to join the Scheme unless Post
Office agrees otherwise.
4. Applications and other communications should be sent either:
44 to the Office of the General Counsel at Post Office, Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury
Street, London EC2Y 9AQ by post or hand delivery; or
42 byemailto casereviewteam(
5. Applicants to the Scheme are required to agree to these Terms of Reference. Applicants
who do not agree to the Terms of Reference will not be eligible to participate in the
Scheme.
6. Once an application has been made, either party may write to the other to request relevant
information. The parties shall co-operate with one another in providing any information
which the other party may reasonably request. Information obtained and provided in
relation to each application should be proportionate to the circumstances of that
application
7. Every application made under the Scheme will be individually investigated and assessed
by a panel of at least three individuals. Following assessment of the claim, Post Office will
write to the Applicant setting out the outcome of their application.
8 In the event the Applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their Application, the following
Dispute Resolution Procedure shall apply
8.1 The Applicant must notify Post Office in writing within 28 days that he or she
wishes to engage the dispute resolution procedure.
8.2 As soon as is practicable, at least one Post Office representative shall meet with
the Applicant, either face-to-face or by telephone, and endeavour to resolve all
issues regarding any outstanding shortfalls in good faith and in a manner that takes
into account the legitimate interests of Post Office and the Applicant (the "HSG
Good Faith Meeting").
8.3 If the dispute is not resolved as a result of the HSG Good Faith Meeting, either
party may within 28 days escalate the dispute to a member of Post Office's senior
management (the "HSG Escalation Meeting") in writing
8.4 If the dispute is not resolved as a result of the HSG Escalation Meeting, either party
may refer the matter to Wandsworth Mediation Service ("WMS") within 28 days.
WMS is a charitable organisation run by Stephen Ruttle QC, one of the two
independent mediators who assisted the parties to reach agreement between Post
Office and the claimants in the group litigation. Profit made by WMS out of the fees
paid for mediations is not for gain but is rather deployed charitably in the
Strictly Confidential 1
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20 53 of 59
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement
8.5
8.6
87
Historic Shortfall Claims Scheme
community. WMS will carry out the mediation in accordance with its standard
terms. The Applicant will not be required to contribute towards the costs of
mediation but the mediation will be limited to four hours in duration
All HSG Good Faith Meetings, HSG Escalation Meetings and mediations shall be
carried out on a confidential and “without prejudice" basis, to ensure each party is
able to engage in an open and meaningful fashion.
Any settlements reached shall be on a full and final basis and shall not be capable
of being re-opened save in the event of fraud. The terms of each settlement will be
recorded in writing and signed by both parties.
In relation to disputes which are not resolved at, or as a result of any mediation:
87.4 disputes for sums totalling not more than £10,000 shall be resolved by
recourse to civil proceedings in the County Court pursuant to the Small
Claims Track and shall be subject to the fee scale applicable thereto.
The parties agree not to seek reallocation of the proceedings to the Fast
Track or the Multi Track; and
8.7.2 disputes for sums totalling in excess of £10,000 shall be referred to and
finally determined by arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996. The
appointing authority shall be either Charles Flint QC or Stephen Ruttle
QC, the number of arbitrators shall be one, the seat of arbitration shall be
London, England and the language of the arbitration shall be English
9. These dispute resolution procedures may be varied by agreement between Post Office and
the Applicant or, if it becomes apparent that amendments to these terms would allow the
Scheme to operate more effectively without causing any material disadvantage to the
Applicants, by agreement between Post Office and Charles Flint QC or Stephen Ruttle QC.
10. Post Office will deal with all Applicants in good faith and in light of the lessons learned from
Mr Justice Fraser's two judgments in the group litigation. However:
10.1
10.2
Strictly Confidential
entry into the Scheme does not guarantee that a relevant shortfall will be repaid or
written off, and
By creating Scheme, Post Office does not waive any of its own legal rights. The
duty of good faith is reciprocal and, if it appears from the investigation of any
application made that the Applicant has not acted consistently with his or her own
duties of good faith, Post Office shall not be precluded from taking such steps as
may be open to it as a matter of law.
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL00128937
POL-0132239
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Histori
POL00128937
ortfall Claims Scheme
Appendix 9
Postmaster letter
DRAFT: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
For the attention of the postmaster
Name
Address
Address
Address
Dear Postmaster,
Launch of Historic Shortfall Scheme
Following the agreed settlement of the group litigation in the High Court in December 2019, I
wanted to share some important information with you about a scheme we have launched that aims
to resolve past issues for current and former postmasters who believe they have experienced
shortfalls that were related to previous versions of Horizon (HNG-X or prior).
As you will have heard, our Group Chief Executive Officer Nick Read has stated that we are fully
committed to resolving past events fairly where we got things wrong, and I hope this scheme
reassures you about the importance to us of working in genuine partnership with postmasters.
I sincerely want to ensure that we continue to put postmasters at the heart of our business and do
all we can to help you to thrive. There is still a great deal more work to do to continue to drive a new
culture at Post Office and I hope this scheme is a step forward in building a more open and
transparent relationship with postmasters.
More information about the scheme is included in this letter and on our website at xxxxx. If you have
any further questions please do not hesitate to contact your area manager.
Yours sincerely
Amanda Jones
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 M
reh 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 3 GLO Post-Settlement - Historic Shortfall Claims
cheme
More details about the scheme
When does the scheme launch?
The scheme opened on 9 March 2020 and applications can be submitted until XX June 2020.
Why has the scheme been launched?
The launch of the Historic Shortfall Scheme follows the agreed settlement in December 2019 of the
group litigation between Post Office and a group of mainly former postmasters.
As part of that litigation, the Court found the current version of Horizon to be robust compared to
similar systems. However, the Court identified some issues with previous versions of Horizon, in use
since around 2000, which had the potential to affect branch accounting.
We are committed to applying lessons learned from the litigation, to address past issues and to reset
our relationship with postmasters. Some current and former postmasters who were not part of the
group litigation may have encountered past shortfalls they believe were linked to previous versions
of Horizon, so we have launched this scheme to resolve any such cases fairly.
What to do if you think you may be eligible
The scheme is open to current and former postmasters.
You can find full information about the scheme at [website address]. This includes the criteria to find
out if you may be eligible, the application form and questions and answers. If you would like to
apply, please use the official scheme application form and follow the guidance given on the above
website about the information to include with your application.
Alternatively, you can email [contact email address] to ask for this information and the application
form to be sent to you, or write to [address].
Please note all applications must be received by midnight on [insert date] to be eligible for
consideration, as the scheme will then close to new applications.
What will happen next if you apply?
Every eligible application will be investigated and assessed and you will be notified of the outcome
as soon as practicable (keeping in mind that it will take some time to investigate and assess the
various claims). A dispute resolution process is available if you are not satisfied with the outcome of
your claim, offering further review stages and independent mediation.
You can find more details about the process on the above website.
Questions and support
You can find questions and answers and full details of the scheme at the website above — potential
applicants should read these carefully. If you have further questions following this, please speak to
your area manager.
56 of 59 Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL-0132239
GLO Post Settlement Programme — Placeholder Forecast for 20/21
S
Appendix 10
Ex Gratia Payments
Historic Claims
ontract Reform
ps Modernisation
‘onvicted Claimants & CCRC
POL00128937
fotal
Legal Fees £6,152,176 £1,569,976) £108,576 £1,826,760I £9,657,488)
implementation Costs (technical, operational, Resource
and Process) £0) £2,500,000I £2,500,000} £0) £5,000,000,
Other Professional Services £1,543,750) £0, £0) £231,250] £1,775,000}
Project Team £235,680} £235,680, £235,680 £80,160} £787,200,
Assurance £0) £500,000} £250,000 £0 £750,000}
internal Investigations Team £493,656) £0) £0) £98,731] £592,387]
QC Panel Member £300,000} £0, £0, £0) £300,000,
External PR £200,000} £0, £0) £50,000} £250,000,
Legal Team Back Fill £120,000} £120,000, £120,000, £120,000} £480,000,
Comms Resources £132,768) £0 £0) £44,256 £177,024
Secondees £77,622 £0, £0) £77,622I £155,244
DSARs
£150,000)
£0)
£0)
£150,000)
@.
POL-0132239
Tab 4.1 Herbert Smith Freehills fees
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee meeting 3 March 2020
Agenda item 4.1 — Herbert Smith Freehills Fees
From: Watts, Alan [mailto’
ceoaned
Sent: 25 February 2020 16:17
To: Ben Foat <;
Ce: Rodric Williams ¢
Subject: Costs - KPIs
Ben
I am hoping this is a suitable juncture to assess how HSF's performance has measured up to the
agreed key performance indicators (KPIs) since last October.
You will recall that, under our engagement letter, 15% of our time costs for phase three is deducted
from our bills and only becomes payable if and to the extent that the GLO Board Subcommittee
considers we have met the agreed KPls (including partner involvement, actual versus quoted lead
time for delivery of work product, quality of advice, cost efficiency and responsiveness (including in
relation to any complaints or issues)). So Post Office has the discretion to agree anything between 0
and 15% based on its view of our performance.
The key points we would draw to Post Office's attention are:
The key role we were instructed on during this period was the mediation and settlement of the
dispute. Against the odds, the mediation was successful. This was a very positive result for Post
Office both in terms of timing (in that it allowed Post Office to manage the effects of the adverse
Horizon judgment and eliminate legal spend on the litigation going forward) and in terms of its
value.
1. We were able to reach a settlement that was within (and indeed fell towards the lower end)
of our suggested settlement range (a net payment of £52.75m against a projected payment
of £45 - £65m).
2. Three factors were instrumental in achieving settlement: (a) our quantum analysis which
enabled us to negotiate credibly about the true value of the claims; (b) our strategy which
took account of our knowledge of the individual claims as well as the diffuse factors driving
both funders and the individual claimants; and (c) the suggestion to appoint Stephen Ruttle
QC alongside Charles Flint QC who was instrumental in helping to manage the expectations
of a volatile claimant group.
3. Key "concessions", such as the shortfall scheme (which were instrumental in satisfying
individual claimant expectations) have allowed Post Office to move forward with credibility
while also minimising the risk of future class actions.
4. Weare continuing to carefully manage the difficult issues associated with the convicted
claimants.
Strictly Confidential Page 1 of 2
Board GLO Sub Committee - 03 March 2020-03/03/20
POL00128937
POL-0132239
POL00128937
Tab 4.1 Herbert Smith Freehill
5. I have been directly involved in all key matters relating to the case, including on shareholder
engagement and engagement with the CCRC.
6. We have leveraged off HSF's Belfast office with their lower charge out-rates and ability to
upscale quickly where required to deliver volume work (such as the quantum review,
individual case analysis and shortfall scheme) in a cost effective way without affecting the
quality of the output.
Do let me know if this email is sufficient for your purposes or whether you need anything more.
Regards
Alan
Strictly Confidential Page 2 of 2
b Committee
59 of 59
POL-0132239