POL00255968
POL00255968
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thanks Paula,
Jane MacLeod;
Fri 27/07/2018 12:21
Paula Vennells{._
Cameron
Tim.Frankli
“}; Alisdair
; Carla Stent”
Michael PassmoreI 4
RE: PostMaster Litigation - Disclosure in the ARA. CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL
PRIVILEGE. DO NOT FORWARD OR COPY
Given we have been advised that we should not expect to win all the implied terms points, and that as yet we have no
visibility of the claims that postmasters may subsequently bring against us once the common issues and Horizon
issues have been resolved, I don’t think we can say ‘we strongly believe that the case lacks merit’. This was the
thinking behind the change in language from ‘without merit’.
Jane
From: Paula Vennells
Sent: 27 July 2018 1
To: Jane MacLeod
Stent:
Ce: Michael Passmore
Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number
Alisdair Cameron Carla
Subject: Re: PostMaster Litigation - Disclosure in the ARA. CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE. DO NOT
FORWARD OR COPY
Does this help EY:
“".. believes strongly that it lacks merit...”
Te., add ‘strongly’
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jane MacLeos
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 1.
9
To: Alisdair Cameron; Paula Vennells; Carla Stent; Tim.Franklin1
Cc: Michael Passmore
Subject: PostMaster Litigation - Disclosure in the ARA. CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE. DO NOT
FORWARD OR COPY
POL00255968
POL00255968
As Al flagged below, EY wanted us to amend the first paragraph of the Contingent Liability note to say that we were
‘robustly/vigourously’ (or equivalent words) defending the litigation, and that we believed the Postmaster case was
‘without merit’. I have circulated that wording around both the Legal team and the Comms team, and our preferred
wording is now as set out below (changes in red). There are reasons for ‘lacks merit’ rather than ‘without merit’ and I
can summarise these at the ARC if required.
If you are comfortable with this, we will forward it to EY.
Kind regards,
Jane
“On 11 April 2016, a High Court claim was issued on behalf of a number of postmasters
against Post Office in relation to various legal, technical and operational matters, many of
which have been the subject of significant external focus for a number of years. Post Office is
robustly defending the claim, believes it lacks merit, but welcomes the opportunity to have
these matters resolved through the Court managed Group Litigation Order.
The Court has ordered two trials to be heard in 2018-19 to determine a subset of the
preliminary issues in dispute between the parties. The Court has not yet ordered a process for
determining any issues of liability or quantum. To date, the Claimants have not asserted the
aggregate value of their claims in any of the Particulars of Claim filed in the litigation.
While the Directors recognise that an adverse outcome could be material, they are currently
unable to determine whether the outcome of these proceedings would have a material adverse
impact on the consolidated position of the Group, and are unlikely to be able to do so until the
Court has made further determinations and the Claimants have provided the necessary
information about the value of their claims. The Directors continue to keep this under close
review.”
Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number:{~~
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 27 July 2018 09:33
To: Paula Vennells
; Tim.Franklind
Carla Stent!”
Cc: Michael Passmore
Subject: EY
; Jane MacLeod?
Dear all, just to let you know that we had a call with EY this morning and, fingers crossed, it looks like we are
getting them there at last.
On the litigation they accept that it is a contingent liability, we do not need to disclose the £80-90m and they
POL00255968
POL00255968
will not refer to it in their audit report. They have suggested an additional sentence for disclosure but Jane will
judge that on its merits.
On the audit side they have asked for one more sample test around IT access but no one thinks it could change
the numbers. They also need formal sign off from their technical and pensions partners which could result in
minor wording changes.
In summary they said that they were happy for us to recommend we sign the ARA to the ARC and Board on
Tuesday. The numbers have not changed since the last ARC and the previous adjustments have been through
the ARA which is on Boardpad.
We will try and get our cover note and their report out this afternoon.
Many thanks to Jane, Micheal and their teams.
Al
Alisdair Cameron
Chief Finance & Operating Officer
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ