POL00269583
POL00269583
FREETHS
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
DX 38517 Southampton3
26 March 2019
Third Letter
Our Ref: JXH/1684/21 13618/1/FKS
Your Ref AP6/364065.1369
Dear Sirs
BATES & OTHERS v POST OFFICE LIMITED
CLAIM NO: HQ16X01238 and HQ17X02637 and HQ17X04248
DEFENDANT’S RECUSAL APPLICATION
Dear Sirs,
We write in response to receipt of the fifteenth witness statement of Mr Parsons (“Parsons 15”).
That witness statement was directed to be filed and served pursuant to paragraph 3.1 of the Order
made in Court on Thursday, 21 March 2019, which required the Post Office to identify:
“(i) the specific findings of fact referred to in paragraph 24 of Parsons 14, (ii) the “critical
invective” referred to in paragraph 25 of Parsons 14, and (iii) the criticisms of Post Office
witnesses referred to in paragraph 25 of Parsons 14.”
We note from Parsons 15 that the Post Office appears to be setting out a non-exhaustive list of
those matters, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 3.1 of the Order above. That appears to
be the case from the express statement to that effect in paragraph 4 of Parsons 15, in which Mr
Parsons says:
“There is a limit to the material that can be referred to in court within the allotted time. The
extracts below are the principal sections of the judgment upon which Post Office intends to
rely at the application hearing but it is not an exhaustive list of the points made in the
Judgment that support Post Office’s application. Post Office will also rely, in its application,
on the structure, tenor and subject-matter of the judgment as a whole.”
In each section of the witness statement which then follows, the opening words are: “The sections
upon which Post Office will particularly rely...” (paragraphs 5, 6 and 7).
roc LLP iid laity parrerai, roeeed in England an Wales, parireraip ruber OCSO46E Regier fc: Cuberand Coup Mun Stet Netfoghan NOY eH
‘Autherised and regulated by the Sotoors Regulation Authony. A ful lit ofthe members of Freaths LLP Ie aval or inspection at the registered ico,
www.freeths.co.uk Freeths LLP, Floor 3, 100 Wellington Street Leeds, LS1 4LT DX 310016 Leeds Park Square
POL-BSFF-0107646
POL00269583
POL00269583
26 March 2019
Page 2
We make the following observations:
1. The Post Office appears to have decided deliberately to breach the Order requiring it to
identify all of the matters that it intends to rely upon. That is not fair to the Court or the
Claimants; if matters are to be relied on, the Court and the Claimants should be given
notice of them specifically, which was the object of the Order made. That cannot have
been misunderstood.
2. The Post Office also now seems to be supplementing the matters referred to in
paragraphs 23 to 25 of Parsons 14 by now seeking to impugn or rely on, for example, “the
structure, tenor and subject-matter of the judgment as a whole”. Not only is the meaning
of this phrase completely opaque in the context of this application, but if it has any
meaning distinct from the matters set out in paragraphs 23 to 25, it clearly goes beyond
the matters identified in those paragraphs. If it has no meaning distinct from the matters
in paragraphs 23 to 25, it is an unjustified distraction and an inappropriate qualification in
Mr Parsons’ witness statement.
3. The approach which the Post Office has taken leaves open the opportunity to ambush
both the Court and the Claimants with further complaints, either in the skeleton argument
or orally on the hearing of the application. Such an approach would not be acceptable in
any normal application. It is certainly not acceptable in this application.
In the light of the above, please unequivocally state whether or not you propose to rely on any
other parts of the Judgment for the purposes of subparagraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) of paragraph 3.1 of the
Order made on 21 March 2019. If you do, please identify these by 6:00pm today in a further
witness statement from Mr Parsons so as substantially to comply (even if belatedly) with the Order
that the Court has made.
If for some reason you believe the Post Office does not have to comply with the Order of the Court,
please explain that expressly with the particularity that you will rely upon at the hearing, and copy
your explanation to the Managing Judge.
Just as an inference of apparent bias is not lightly to be drawn, so a charge of apparent bias is not
to be lightly made. It is a serious allegation and must be properly particularised. The Post Office
can have been left in no doubt about that given the submissions made by the Claimants’ Leading
Counsel in relation to the need for such particulars. This is not an issue which the Post Office can
finesse and a clear position must now be established so that the Claimants can consider with
precision the basis upon which the application is made and whether or not to oppose it.
If we do not receive a satisfactory response by 6:00pm today, we will then consider whether to
seek an unless order or otherwise raise the matter with the Managing Judge.
POL-BSFF-0107646_0001
26 March 2019
Page 3
Yours faithfully
Hieadas Leaf
Freeths LLP
Please respond by e-mail where possible
POL00269583
POL00269583
POL-BSFF-0107646_0002