POL00276195
POL00276195
From: Andrew ParsonsI
Sent: Sun 09/06/2019 8:20:48 PM (UTC)
To:
Ce:
Subject: RE: Group Litigation - Annual Report and Accounts - Disclosure [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Ben
The concern at the outset was that any early settlement would be seen as conceding the Cs arguments on the SPM
contracts and Horizon. This would then possibly open the floodgates to more claims. So the plan was for Post Office
to try to secure some positive decisions in its favour before broaching the topic of settlement.
The strategy was to contest the Common Issues trial, because based on the advice from Counsel, Post Office should
win on most points. With the Common Issues expected to be resolved in PO's favour, either the Cs funding would
collapse or they might walk away for a modest settlement that, when viewed against a positive Common Issues
judgment, would not set a dangerous precedent. With this in mind, before the Cl judgment was handed down we had
already agreed a mediator with Freeths and had begun planning for settlement discussions.
Further, Post Office had Deloitte review the Horizon system out the outset of the litigation and they advised that
Horizon was robust and extremely unlikely to be the cause of shortfalls in branches. This therefore gave us a back-up
plan in case a resolution didn't come immediately in the wake of the Common Issues judgment. Deloitte gave us a
degree of confidence in winning the Horizon trial, and that might then cause the Cs funding to collapse or a modest
settlement would be possible.
If this didn't work, then the next step was to "thin the heard". By this we meant identifying sub-groups of Claimants
whose claims could be defeated on a technicality or legal point. For example, trying to strike out all the time-barred
claims. By “thinning the herd" you undermine the economics of the group. Less Claimants means less damages
which makes the funder's return on investment lower to the point where they would prefer to settle rather than invest
more money.
The strategy was never to seek an outright win through the Court process, for that would mean ultimately defending
500+ individual claims in 500+ separate trials (because the cases turn on their own facts and the utility of dealing with
them as a group gradually erodes as more "group issues" are resolved and you are left with individual issues). Even if
Post Office's legal case was perfect, securing a full resolution through the Courts would take years and be massively
disproportionately expensive. Hence, the above plan to build leverage and air cover through the Court process to
force a settlement or a collapse of the litigation.
I hope this helps explain why there hasn't been an overall opinion on the merits of the litigation in general. My
availability is patchy this week, but if you would like to discuss, drop me a note and I'll call you as soon as I can.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
: GRO
Manage your e-alert preferences
garze
POL00276195
POL00276195
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND ~ K
DICKINSON () (in)
From: Ben Foat +_
Sent: 08 June 201
To: Andrew Parsons <
Subject: RE: Group Litigation - Annual Report and Accounts - Disclosure [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
This maybe controversial — why are we going to trial if we don’t have an opinion on the likely outcome (that would be
favourable to us). One would not usually go to trial without advice that we were going to be successful.
In any event, can you please reach out to Chris and Lucy at PWC. As the external lawyers, they need your confirmation
on the approach. They want to discuss the matter with you.
Kind regards
Ben
Ben Foat
General Counsel
Post Office Limited
From: Andrew Parsons <_
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 6:56:09 AM
To: Ben Foat; Rodric Williams; ‘Watts, Alan’; kirsten. masseyi _ ; Henderson, Tom; Mark Underwood1
Subject: RE: Group Litigation - Annual Report and Accounts - Disclosure [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Ben
For last year's audit, we provided the attached letter that expressed our view that it was reasonable for Post Office to
state that it was currently unable to estimate the amounts of the ultimate liabilities which might be incurred. However,
to be clear neither WBD nor Counsel have ever given an opinion that Post Office would or ought to be successful in
the outcome of the litigation overall, which I think is the view sought in your email and PWC's email. We are not ina
position to give such an opinion as that would turn on the outcome of 555 cases, and we would need to review and
assess each individual case. Thus far, Counsel have produced a written opinion on the likely outcome of the Common
Issues and have verbally briefed the board Sub-committee, and more latterly HSF, on the likely outcome of the
Horizon Issues. But the opinions do not go further than that.
With the few small changes attached, I'm happy with the draft ARA wording. Also, save for adding a reference to the
recent costs orders, I stand by the view in the attached letter and would (subject to clearing WBD's internal compliance
checks) be prepared to issue this letter again this year.
Happy to discuss.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
POL00276195
POL00276195
Manage your e-alert preferences
womblebonddickinson.com
) ypu
fe
DICKINSON ¥) wy
From: Ben Foat
Sent: 05 June 2019 22:19 . _
To: Rodric Williams . GRO Andrew Parsons! GRO. "Watts,
Alan‘ GRO “1; kirsten.massey{_.GRO___ Henderson, Tom ¢ Mark
Underwood1}
Subject: Group Litigation - Annual Report and Accounts - Disclosure
All
See below. This relates to the Post Office 18/19 Annual Report and Accounts and specifically whether a provision
needs to be made (ie if its more probable than not that an economic outflow will occur which essentially means that
on balance we will like pay money in relation to this matter). The legal advice to date is that on balance Post Office
believes that it would be successful given the legal analysis and that there has been no liability in respect of the claim
to date and won’t know until the judgment of at least the third if not fourth trials. Consequently, it is not more
probable than not and as such no provision needs to be made but as a contingent liability a disclosure statement is
required. I have circulated the draft disclosure wording for the ARA but PWC will need to speak to WBD specifically
(with HSF) to confirm the view. They also need to get an understanding of costs.
Kind regards
Ben
Ben Foat
General Counsel
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Highly Commended for ‘Excellence In-house’ at the Law Society Mobile
Excellence Awards 2018
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: Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street,
London, EC2Y 9AQ.
POL00276195
POL00276195
From: lucy.h.masont_
Sent: 05 June 2019 20:02
To: Ben Foat ¢
Cc: Chris Neale (UK - Assurance}
Woodhouse R
Subject: Follow up to our call this afternoon
_..b Tom Lee Lo
Andrew Paynter (UK - Assurance) [
Hi all,
Thank you for your time today - it was most useful. As discussed, I've just dropped the follow-up actions into an email
so we all know what the next steps are for both parties.
Post Office
© Ben to chase the arrangement of the external counsel calls/meetings with PwC for WBD and HS. These will
be key and our partner, Andrew should be involved on the calls (Our expectation is that external counsel will
provide written confirmation subsequent to the meetings that an economic outflow is not probable as POL
ought to be successful based on current law).
* POL to provide an overview of expected costs per trial, to which financial year they relate for PwC
completeness review (to ensure we're comfortable with what you are and what you are not providing for and
the reasons why)
* Management to provide a paper as audit evidence which summarises the position on the GLO and the stance
to be taken on disclosure in the ARA
* Management to start to draft disclosure for inclusion in ARA - including the fact pattern and what has
happened in the case and POL's position at point of signing. Disclosure to be explicit about probability versus
possibility (i.e. why it is not probable in light of what has happened over the course of the last year).
* PwC to consult internally as to the implications of what ‘considering settlements options’ in terms of every
eventuality scenario planning means from a possibility / probability argument - to feedback to POL on this
© PwC to draft legal confirmation for Ben to review prior to issuing them to WBD and HS after the meetings
have occured.
Please let me know if I have missed anything out.
In terms of timeframes, I think the next couple of weeks will be fairly critical in shaping the above, we are obviously
cognisant of the fact that this is a moving picture however there will be a lot of interest in the disclosure from
stakeholders on both sides of the audit, so would be good to get things moving fairly quickly.
Thanks in advance,
Lucy
Lucey Mason (UK - Assurance)PwC I Senior ManagerMobile: jEmail:
'PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPCentral Square, 29 Wellington Street, Leeds, LS1 4DLwww.pwe.co.uk
At PwC we work flexibly - so whilst it suits me to email now, I do not expect a response or action
outside of your own working hours.
Please note, Friday is my non-working day.
POL00276195
POL00276195
- End of message text -----
Get involved in our public discussion on the future of audit - we want to hear your views. Find out more here
https:/Awww.pwe.co.uk/who-we-are/the-future-of-audit.htmI
This email is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, please delete the email
and do not use it in any way.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP accepts no liability for any use of or reliance on this email by anyone, other than the
intended addressee to the extent agreed in the relevant contract for the matter to which this email relates (if any).
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England under registered number
0C303525, with its registered address at 1 Embankment Place, London, WC2N 6RH. It is authorised and regulated by
the Financial Conduct Authority for designated investment business and by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for
regulated legal activities. For security purposes and other lawful business purposes, PwC monitors outgoing and
incoming emails and may monitor other telecommunications on its email and telecommunications systems.
Visit our website http://www.pwc.com/uk <a href="http://www.pwe.com/uk">http://www.pwe.com/uk</a> and see our
privacy statement for details of why and how we use personal data and your rights (including your right to object and to
stop receiving direct marketing from us).
JESSE EIS E ESE EEI SESE EE EEK
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: Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury
Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
FESS SIEGE CIOS CCE OO ESI OSE OSE GE ASSESSES EI Ir
“Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found on our
website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy”
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is ‘pnly is authorised to access this
ail and any attachments, If you are not ben.f
nd dele
jon about how we use personal data is in our
any copies. Unauthorised use.
dissemination, distribution, publication or copy
Privacy Policy on our website
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been chee
loss or damage which may be
ed by us with virus detection software before transmission, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP accepts no liability for any
ved by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it.
This email is sent by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP which is a limited liability partnership
is 4 More London Riverside, London, SE1 2AU, wher
or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT r
istered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office
list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee
tration number is GB 123393627,
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
services in the US, the UK, and elsewhei
can bind or obligate, another Womble B
ember of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, wh
around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is a se
Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limite:
for further details.
consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing
eh
al entity and is not responsible for the acts or omissions of, nor
not practice law. Please see
not
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.