POL00201779
POL00201779
From: David Oliver
Sent: Thur 13/03/2014
To: Band, Christaf.
Swil, Jonathan}
Ce: Chris Aujard{
Subject: RE: Following discussions at Post Office
Christa,
One more thing. ExCo discussed the legal advice and the scoping today.
The following points were of particular interest to ExCo (I realise we have covered some of these with you but thought
helpful to convey):
e — Triaging of cases.
e@ Segmentation of the cases.
e What client side advice/insight you might be able to bring to bear (there was interest from the board as to
what approach, standard life was cited)
e Precedent — where there was a quite extensive discussion of what precedent different approaches might set
including how we avoid setting a precedent and whether our approach and liability would be effected by how
the organisation has previously enforced the contract
e — The option of closing the scheme down altogether and allowing applicants to pursue through the courts if
they were so minded.
e@ Whether the public status of the organisation and the public purpose statement meant that actually the
organisation should make a goodwill payment.
¢ How Post Office might deal with a single outlying case if they found one where they felt that consequential
losses were justified.
Regards
David
David Oliver
Programme Manager
Initial Complaint and Mediation Scheme
From: Band, Christa [mailtc
Sent: 13 March 2014 10:21
To: Belinda Crowe; Swil, Jonathan
Cc: David Olivers Chris Aujard
Subject: RE: Following discussions at Post Office
Belinda
Thank you — this is helpful and we have the point.
Christa
From: Belinda Crowe [mailto:
Sent: 13 March 2014 09:48
POL00201779
POL00201779
To: Swil, Jonathan; Band, Christa
Cc: David Olivers: Chris Aujard; Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Following discussions at Post Office
Jonathan/Christa
I know we have discussed this but could you ensure that, your paper expressly addresses the following:
How best can we start to manage the expectations of the applicants claiming high levels of compensation?
When/how could we inform Applicants that our intention is not to consider consequential losses? It was never our
intention to so do,
You have the Scheme documentation and the information given at the training event for advisors which may be
relevant here. i.e: this was not stated in the Scheme documentation so what would be the implications of setting out
our position now? What might be the impact in relation to the Working Group and also the Chair.
This may come up in discussion with Paula next week so please could you come along ready to answer these points
specifically.
Happy to discuss if helpful
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ.
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 12 March 2014 14:27
To: Swil, Jonathan
Cc: Band, Christa; David Oliveriz} Chris Aujard; Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Following discussions at Post Office
Jonathan
Chris said that we would get back to you with some comments on format for the Board paper. Having discussed
internally the view is that the Board would prefer a paper to a powerpoint presentation.
I understand that you will want to prepare a very detailed note and [a letter containing] an executive summary. We
can take a view, when we see what you have prepared, whether both the detailed paper and the executive summary
needs to be presented to the Board. We can pick that up with Christa on Monday.
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
POL00201779
POL00201779
From: Chris Aujard
Sent: 12 March 2014 08:57
To: Swil, Jonathan
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Band, Christa; David Oliver
Subject: RE: Following discussions at Post Office
Thanks Jonathan — Please do correct me I have got this wrong, but I think what you are saying is that:
1) Any claim for wrongful termination of contract will be limited by reference to the amount to which the SPMR
would otherwise have been entitled during the three month notice period.
2) Claims in respect of “other categories of alleged liability and loss” (e.g., wrongful “loss recovery”) would not
necessarily be so limited.
To get a complete picture, I really do need to understand what, if anything, would be the legal basis for the “other
categories of alleged liability and loss”. Not being a litigator I struggle to see what type of action could be brought, or
if one could be brought, that the facts would support the claim. Is there anything that you can think of? Please do pick
up the phone if you want to throw round any ideas. The place I want to be in is one where I can give the board a
complete view of the realistic legal position (not the that which might apply in theory).
Many thanks
Chris
From: Swil, Jonathan [mailtoj
Sent: 11 March 2014 18:44
To: David Olivers:
Cc: Chris Aujard; Belinda Crowe; Band, Christa
Subject: RE: Following discussions at Post Office
David
We have considered your question below.
We agree that insofar as a SPMR’s claim is for loss suffered as a result of the wrongful termination of his contract, the
maximum damages he could claim are likely limited to the pay to which he would otherwise have been entitled during
the three month notice period.
Section 1, clause 10 of the contract entitles Post Office to determine the contract on giving a SPMR three months’
notice. It also entitles termination for breach of a condition of the contract or non-performance of obligations or
services under it. Accordingly, it does not matter for what reason the SPMR’s contract is terminated, provided three
months’ notice is given. If no or less than three months’ notice is given, then Post Office would need to establish that
the SPMR had breached a condition or not performed an obligation or services. If Post Office cannot do that, then it
will be in breach to the extent of the insufficient notice and the losses flowing from that breach would likely only be the
pay lost during the or the remainder of the notice period. In some cases, such damages may well be less than three
months pay because of the general duty to mitigate loss (i.e. in this case, to find a new source of income) and/or any
savings of costs that would otherwise ordinarily be incurred by the SPMR in his Post Office business if his contract had
not been terminated prematurely.
The claims in respect of other categories of alleged liability and loss e.g., wrongful “loss recovery” by Post Office, are
a separate matter.
POL00201779
POL00201779
Kind regards
Jonathan
From: David Oliver={mailto:!
Sent: 11 March 2014 12:33
To: Swil, Jonathan
Cc: Chris Aujard; Band, Christa; Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Following discussions at Post Office
Jonathan,
Thanks. Following up our conversation:
e Yes on the structure please stick to our revised structure.
¢ On timing Chris would like a review meeting on Monday and then a draft on Wednesday.
e@ On Second Sight as discussed please focus on any legal risk and forward looking not an analysis of how we
engaged them.
Separately grateful for an urgent answer to the question —is there anything you have seen to call into question Bond
Dickinson’s advice that Post Office’s liability with respect to a SPMR who has been summarily dismissed is framed by
the contractual notice period? Please let us know asap if you have a different view. In other words are the claims for
consequential loss completely out of court?
Regards
david
David Oliver
Programme Manager
Initial Complaint and Mediation Scheme
From: Swil, Jonathan [mailto;
Sent: 10 March 2014 18:44
To: David Oliveri:
Cc: Chris Aujard; Band, Christa; Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Following discussions at Post Office
David
Thanks for this. I’m generally free to discuss anytime tomorrow moming after 9.30am. Let me know what time suits
you.
Kind regards
Jonathan
From: David Oliveri
Sent: 10 March 2014 18:35
To: Swil, Jonathan
Cc: Chris Aujard; Band, Christa; Belinda Crowe
POL00201779
POL00201779
Subject: Following discussions at Post Office
Jonathan,
Thanks for the paper. We have cut down further and reshaped to fit house style. Can we discuss tomorrow morning
once you have had a chance to review?
Thanks
David
David Oliver
Programme Manager
I Complaint and Me:
JES SS IS IHD IIS IODIDE IIIS III III III IDI
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
Any business communication, sent by or on behalf of Linklaters LLP or one of its affiliated firms or other
entities (together "Linklaters"), is confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected. If you receive it
in error please inform us and then delete it from your system. You should not copy it or disclose its contents
to anyone. Messages sent to and from Linklaters may be monitored to ensure compliance with internal policies
and to protect our business. Emails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free. Anyone who
communicates with us by email is taken to accept these risks. Linklaters LLP is a limited liability partnership
registered in England and Wales with registered number 0C326345. It is a law firm authorised and regulated
by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ww rg.uk). The term partner in relation to Linklaters LLP is
used to refer to a member of Linklaters LLP or an employee or consultant of Linklaters LLP or any of its
affiliated firms or entities with equivalent standing and qualifications. Please refer to
www .linklaters.com/regulation for important information on our regulatory position. A list of Linklaters LLP
members together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners and their professional
qualifications, may be inspected at our registered office, One Silk Street, London EC2Y 8HQ and such
persons are either solicitors, registered foreign lawyers or European lawyers.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JES IB IS ISHII IIIS IIS IOI III ISI III III III III I III IIE
POL00201779
POL00201779
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.